Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-28 Planning Commission Regular Meeting PacketAgenda Planning Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Me m be rs of th e public can participate in the pu blic he arings by callin g 800-374-0221 with Confere n ce ID 8729768 du ring th e m ee ting. Press *1 on your telephone ke ypa d whe n you are ready to te stify in a public hearin g. An ope rator will m ute you r line place you into a qu eue until it is your tu rn to spe ak. Afte r t h e public h earings, the call will e n d. Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Planning Commission September 23, 2020 V.Public Hearings A.B-20-17 Variance 1- Relief from requirement for all single dwelling unit buildings to be constructed with a basement hav ing a gross ,oor a rea equal to at least 50 percent of the gross ,oor area of the story next above. Varia nce 2- T o increase the 0rst ,oor of the new home 2.3’ above the elev ation of existing home requiring a 1.3 foot 0rst ,oor height v ariance for 4909 Bywood West B.A v ariance from the basement requirements for a new home to be constructed at 309 Dearborn Court VI.Reports/Recommendations VII.Correspondence And Petitions VIII.Chair And Member Comments IX.Sta 8 Comments X.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli 0c ation, an interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861 72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting. Date: O c to b er 28, 2020 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Adminis trative S uppo rt S p ecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommission S ep tember 23, 2020 Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : Approve the minutes from the S eptember 23, 2020 P lanning C ommission. I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description Minutes Planning Commis s ion September 23, 2020 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2020 Page 1 of 3 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission VIRTUAL MEETING September 23, 2020 I. Call To Order Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Berube, Thorsen, Strauss, Cullen, Olsen, Bennett, Agnew, and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: None. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the September 23, 2020, agenda. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, September 9, 2020 Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the September 9, 2020, meeting minutes. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Continue Public Hearing to October 14, 2020. B-20-17, a 28.1% variance from the 50% full depth basement requirement to have under the main floor of a home’s first floor and a variance to allow building a basement for health and safety where the floor elevation extends 6.7 feet below the flood protection elevation for a teardown/rebuild – 4904 Bywood Way West. Chair Nemerov explained staff recommends continuing the Public Hearing to October 14, 2020. Commissioner Thorsen moved to continue the public hearing to October 14, 2020. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. B-20-19, A 15-foot rear yard setback variance – 4630 Drexel Avenue Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2020 Page 2 of 3 Assistant Planner Emily Bodeker presented the request for a 15-foot rear yard setback variance at 4630 Drexel Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff addressed Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Scott Busan, Great Neighbor Homes, introduced himself and addressed the Commission. Mr. John & Mrs. Cathy Wolf, 4630 Drexel Avenue, owners, and applicants were also at the meeting, addressed and answered Commission questions. Public Hearing No one wished to address the Commission. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission reviewed the requested variance. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 15- Foot Rear Yard Setback Variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. 2021 Work Plan Director Teague presented the 2021 Work Plan and indicated if the Commission agrees with the work plan Chair Nemerov will present to the City Council at their October 7, 2020 meeting. Staff answered Commission questions. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Motion carried. VII. Correspondence and Petitions None. VIII. Chair and Member Comments Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2020 Page 3 of 3 Chair Nemerov reviewed with the Commission and staff emails and news articles regarding climate change he has received. IX. Staff Comments None. X. Adjournment Commissioner Miranda moved to adjourn the September 23, 2020, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 7:37 PM. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried. Date: O c to b er 28, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:Kris Aaker, As s is tant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-20-17 Variance 1- R elief from requirement for all s ingle d welling unit b uildings to be c ons tructed with a bas ement having a gross flo o r area equal to at least 50 perc ent of the gro s s floor area of the s tory next above. Varianc e 2- To increase the firs t flo o r of the new home 2.3’ ab o ve the elevatio n o f exis ting home requiring a 1.3 fo o t firs t flo o r height varianc e for 4909 Bywo o d Wes t Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : Approve the variance request as submitted. I N TR O D U C TI O N : T he subject property is located at 4904 Bywood West, consisting of two lots, one fronting B ywood with the existing home, (L ot 2), and a vacant lot, (L ot 5), that abuts to the rear of the B ywood property. T he proposal is a tear down/rebuild for a new home without at least a 50 percent basement fronting B ywood West with a detached garage proposed for the vacant L ot 5, fronting I nterlachen. T he applicant would like to combine the properties into one parcel. T here are 2 variance requests and one request to consolidate the two separate lots. Variance 1- R elief from requirement for all single dwelling unit buildings to be constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. Variance 2- To increase the first floor of the new home 2.3’ above the elevation of existing home requiring a 1.3 foot first floor height variance. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff report Site location Applicant narrative Engineering memo Site /Survey/plans Plans /renderings Storm water plan The subject property consists of two lots, is 78,154 square feet in area and is located on the west side of Bywood West. The current site has a two-story home with an inground pool built in 1960. The property includes a vacant lot located directly behind 4904 Bywood West that fronts Interlachen Boulevard. The applicant is requesting variances from the minimum basement requirements in order to construct a new home where the existing home is located fronting Bywood, (Lot 2). The property also includes a vacant lot, (Lot 5), that abuts to the rear of the Bywood West property with access gained from Interlachen Boulevard. The new home will be two stories, have an attached garage, in-ground swimming pool and sport court fronting Bywood West, (on Lot 2), and a detached garage proposed on the vacant lot, (Lot 5), fronting and accessing from Interlachen Blvd. The proposal is a tear down/rebuild with a new home that will have a smaller than required basement, (storm shelter), with the first floor of the new home 2.3’ above the elevation of the existing home requiring a 1.3-foot first floor height variance. The applicant also intends to combine the properties into one parcel. The City of Edina requires the following: Basements: All single dwelling unit buildings shall be constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. First Floor Elevations: For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of, existing single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first-floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. October 28, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B-20-17, variances for the relief from requirement to have full depth basement under the main floor of a new home and a 1.3 foot 1st floor height variance from 1 foot maximum first floor elevation increase for a teardown/rebuild at 4904 Bywood West. Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Variances are therefore requested as follows: Variance 1- Relief from requirement to have full depth basement under main floor of new home to allow for a storm shelter. The current code requires 50% of the new home first floor to have full basement below. Due to the proposed structure’s proximity outside the flood zone sub-basin, but still adjacent to a pond and flood plain, the City Engineer has allowed the home a minimal basement size for storm shelter purposes only. Variance 2- To increase the first floor of the new home 2.3’ above the elevation of existing home requiring a 1.3-foot first floor height variance. Due to recent City Engineering findings of 100 year back to back flood risk criteria, the lowest level of the storm shelter accepted for this situation is set at elevation 900.0’ This increases the proposed first-floor elevation to 909.1. Existing first floor elevation is 906.8. After a code allowed 1' height increase, a 1.3 ' variance is needed. It should be noted that an increase to allowed overall roof peak height from existing grade of the structure is not requested. The plan increases 1st floor height, however, conforms to the maximum peak height requirement. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing 78,154 square foot parcel was developed in 1960 with a two-story home and is located on the west side of Bywood West. The property consists of two lots, one fronting Bywood Way and the other fronting Interlachen Boulevard. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their memorandum. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. Volume control and rate control for the additional impervious surface is provided via the STAFF REPORT Page 3 underground stormwater storage system. A final grade as-built survey, inspection, and as-built cut/fill analysis will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development A 1,120 square foot basement is proposed (storm shelter) with a lowest floor elevation of 900.0’ based on the revised proposed site plan dated 10/9/20. This proposed lowest floor elevation conforms with options outside the subwatershed and up to 5’ below the nearby flood elevation, including FEMA technical bulletin requirements. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side – West Rear - South Side – East Front – 10 feet 25 feet/50 feet/pond 10 feet 76.3 feet 10 feet 50.1 feet 10.52 feet 76.32 feet Building Coverage 25% 16.5% Basement First Floor Elevation Building Height 50% 906.8 ex/907.8 max 40 feet 21.9%* 909.10* 40 feet *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues • Does the proposed new home meet the criteria for approval of variances with a with a new home without a basement? Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for variances to allow the home to be built without a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above and with a 1st floor elevation as requested for the following reasons: Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: STAFF REPORT Page 4 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. “Practical difficulties” may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of the basement size and 1st floor elevation. The lot is large enough to accommodate the needs of the applicant without having new construction exposed to potential flood risk. The current code requires 50% of the new home first floor to have full basement below. Due to the proximity to a pond and flood plain, the City Engineer allows minimal basement size for a storm shelter. Due to City Engineering findings of 100 year back to back flood risk criteria, the lowest level of the storm shelter accepted for this situation is set at elevation 900.0’ The proposed 1st floor height increase will bring the new home up to the 1st floor elevations of adjacent neighbors. The home will still comply with the maximum height required as measured from existing grade. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The basement area is designed strictly as a storm shelter. The applicant has indicated that the existing home on site currently has a full basement that has never had ground water problems. The current sump pump does not run. Professional soil borings recently done show no ground water until reaching depths of 10' below the proposed basement. Due to proximity to flood risk, and owners need for a storm shelter basement, City Engineers are requiring reduced basement size and special considerations in the construction of the basement to adequately protect it from water penetration by installing foundation waterproofing coatings along with under floor drainage and sump pump with back up electrical. The increased floor height will be needed to accommodate the storm shelter. Current house first floor elevation is 906.8'. For the new house to comply with engineering request of lowest basement height at 900.0’ the applicant is requesting first floor elevation at 909.10. The code allows for a l foot height adjustment with a variance for additional 1.3' in first floor elevation. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Owners have indicated they would comply with the full basement ordinance if flood plain conditions allowed. After discussions and consideration of City Engineer requirements, the owner has agreed to a reduced basement area. This brings the property more into conformity with zoning ordinance than existing conditions. The neighboring homes on either side have first floor elevations 2' higher than this proposed elevation. Raising the height of this new home will create more uniformity with homes on either side. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The variances will not alter the exterior look of the block given this home is situated between the more elevated STAFF REPORT Page 5 homes on either side. The overall height of the home is below the 40' maximum allowed height from average existing grade. The variances will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. All aspects of the home will conform to the ordinance requirements with exception of the proposed basement and 1st floor elevation. The variance is in keeping with the intent of city ordinances and policies and flood protection goals of the city. The proposed home design reflects the character of the neighborhood in required height, scale, and mass. The home is appropriate and similar to surrounding properties. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance, subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey: Date stamped: October 5, 2020. • Building plans and elevations dated: October 5, 2020. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 Lege nd Addresses Octob er 21, 2020 1 in = 188 f t / Variance Application Introduction Property: Jeffrey and Molly Engelsma 4904 Bywood West, Edina, Mn Mr. and Mrs. Engelsma own and live in a home located on the property at 4904 Bywood West, Edina, MN They have lived in this home for several years and now have decided to remove the current home and build a new one on the same footprint. Additionally, they have purchased a vacant lot, Lot 5, that abuts to the rear of their current property, Lot 2, and would like to combine the properties. The two properties are separated by a drainage ditch that carries surface water from the lots 2,5 and the neighbor's property to the North and empties into a collection pond abutting the South of the property. To make the properties more contiguous we are proposing to relocate the drainage area to the South West and build an infiltration system that will collect the water and better manage its infiltration back into the ground rather than dumping directly into the pond. There are 2 variance requests and one request to consolidate the two separate lots. Variance 1: Relief from the ordinance requiring 50% first floor area of new home to have full basement. Variance 2: Increase the first floor of the new home 2.3' above the elevation of existing home. Action 3 would be to allow the applicant to combine the two properties with the proposed grade modifications. Attached is the proposed lot consolidation, site plan, the new building plans, and variance application. Thank you for considering our requests. John Boyer Boyer Building Corporation On behalf of the owners Jeffrey and Molly Engelsma. PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA Attachment to Page 2 of Variance Application. PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA The proposed variance will: 1. Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Variance 1: The current code requires 50% of the new home first floor to have full basement below. Due to the proximity to a pond and flood plain although outside the flood zone subbasin the city engineer requires minimal basement size- for storm shelter only. Variance 2: Due to recent City engineering findings of 100 year back to back flood risk criteria, the lowest level of the storm shelter accepted for this situation is set at elevation 900'. This necessarily requires a first-floor elevation of 909.1. Existing first floor elevation is 906.8. After a code allowed 1' height increase, a 1.3 ' variance will be needed An increase to allowed height of the structure will not be needed. 2. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other properties in the zoning district. Variance 1: The existing home on site currently has a full basement that has never had ground water problems. The current sump pump does not run. Professional soil borings recently done show no ground water until reaching depths of 10' below the proposed basement. Due to proximity to flood risk, and owners need for a storm shelter basement, city engineers are requiring reduced basement size and special considerations in the construction of the basement to adequately protected from water penetration by installing foundation waterproofing coatings along with under floor drainage and sump pump with back up electrical. Variance2: The increased floor height will be needed to accommodate the storm shelter. Current house first floor elevation is 906.8'. For the new house to comply with engineering request of lowest basement height at 900.00' we need a first floorelevation at 909.10. The code allows for a lfoot height adjustment and we are asking for a variance for the additional 1.3' in first floor elevation. 3. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. 'Variance 1: Owners would be happy to comply with the full basement ordinance if conflicting flood plain conditions allowed After discussions and consideration of city engineer requests, Mr. Engelsma has agreed to a reduced basement area. This brings the property more into conformity with zoning ordinance than existing conditions. Variance 2: The neighboring homes on either side have first floor elevations 2' higher than this proposed elevation. Raising the height of this new home will create more conformity with homes on either side. 4. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Variance 1: This variances will alter the exterior look of the building in any way. Variance 2 will better the look of this home as it is situated between the more elevated homes on either side. As mentioned above, the overall height of the home is below the 40' maximum allowed height from average existing grade. The variances will not have any impact on the neighborhood DATE: 10/22/2020 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Ross Bintner, PE – Engineering Services Manager Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 4904 Bywood West - Variance Review <Revision 2> The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, flood risk, erosion and sediment control, and general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed included grading and drainage plan, erosion and sediment control plan, cut and fill analysis, stormwater management memo revised 10/5/20, and a geotechnical report dated 7/24/20. Summary of Work The applicant proposes a new home, outbuilding, sport court, and pool. The request is for a variance to a full basement requirement and to the lowest floor requirement. Easements A utility easement is shown on Lot 2. Given the lot consolidation, the easement should be vacated. Grading and Drainage Lot 2 consists of subwatersheds HI_6 and HI_22. Lot 5 consists of subwatersheds HI_20, 21, and 22. Subwatershed HI_22 is landlocked and contains a structural flooding issue. The grading of the lot removes the natural overflow from HI_22 to the east. The applicant plans an alternative overflow above the 1%-annual-chance flood elevation of the basin at 903.99’, but lower than the current overflow elevation of 905.0’. • Generally, the cut/fill analysis should be revised to show compensatory storage is provided for each flood shape within the corresponding flood elevation or provide alternate review that show no net risk to neighboring property. This change is minor and does not affect the variance application. • Revised stormwater and grading plan showing the proposed EOF and overflow drainage path should be submitted during building permit review. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. Volume control and rate control for the additional impervious surface is provided via the underground stormwater storage system. A final grade as-built survey, inspection, and as-built cut/fill analysis will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development The City previously reported a local 1%-annual-chance flood elevation of 903.4’. Staff requested a review of the model by Barr Engineering and found this elevation assumed a 12” CMP outfall. Staff reviewed the site and found no outlet. The applicant may provide further information from any site investigation it conducts on the outlet elevation or starting water elevation. The attached technical review (Barr Engineering Co., September 28, 2020) set the1%-annual-chance flood elevation at 903.7’. Lowest Floor Elevation Standards and Groundwater Listed below are the options to set the lowest opening elevation and associated commentary. 1. Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) section 3.1.2.1(5) requires the lowest floor elevation (LFE) at no less than 2’ above the back-to-back 1%-annual-chance flood elevation, with the elevation of the waterbody established by one of a variety of methods. a. The elevation of the back-to-back 1%-annual-chance flood elevation of 905.0’ (LFE 907.0’) b. The starting water elevation of 900.5’, as determined by Barr Engineering. c. In conversation, the applicant’s engineer relayed that the water elevation may be currently set by pumping by private parties. 2. Alternatively, if a piped outlet were present, the LFE would be 2’ above the outlet elevation and the lowest opening elevation would be 2’ above the 1%-annual-chance flood elevation. Currently, the outlet elevation is estimated at 903.99’ (LFE 905.99’) based on the proposed emergency overflow path. The attached technical review suggested a minimum outlet elevation above the 1%-probability flood event, 903.7’ (LFE 905.7’), or a higher elevation if the proposal modifies the 1%-annual-chance flood elevation, as suggested in the attached technical review. 3. In further discussion with the applicant’s engineer, the applicant has disputed whether the lowest floor variance is required, as the policy in CWRMP is for structures that are adjacent or within the landlocked basin and lack of definitions of some key terms leave a grey area. a. Attached is both the document, which delineates examples throughout the City, provided to the applicant to clarify staff reading of the CWRMP policy, and the response. b. Based on staff understanding after further submission from the applicant; While the structure is adjacent to the landlocked basin, the basement section of the structure is outside the landlocked basin. 4. Soils and groundwater recommendations from the attached Geotechnical Exploration Report (Haugo Geotechnical Services, July 24, 2020) are also mixed. a. Soils and groundwater data from a geotechnical report stated that groundwater was not encountered prior to backfill of the borings, but it is possible that given the soils, an insufficient time was allotted to allow the water to collected (section 3.2,) but the engineer does not anticipate groundwater to be encountered (section 4.2,) at a basement elevation around 897.2’ (section 4.1.) Further statements about groundwater are made in sections 6.2 and 7.3. b. The geotechnical engineer recommends that the lowest floor grades be constructed to maintain a 4’ separation from groundwater, (unknown) and a 2’ separation from the 1%-annual-chance flood elevation of nearby surface waters (LFE 905.7’). 5. The applicant proposed the use of FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 to set the basement elevation. Lowest floor elevation of -5’ from back-to-back 1%-annual chance flood elevation 905.0-5=LFE 900.0. Attached is the Technical Bulletin with notes. While the risk of flooding due to groundwater are primarily the responsibility of the property owner, they can also affect sanitary sewer backflow risk for the public system and nearby neighbors to the extent that private foundation drainage systems are overwhelmed. A 1,120 square foot basement is proposed (storm shelter) with a lowest floor elevation of 900.0’ based on the revised proposed site plan dated 10/9/20. This proposed lowest floor elevation conforms with options 3 (outside the subwatershed) and 5 (up to 5’ below the nearby flood elevation, including FEMA technical bulletin requirements) listed above. Staff is amenable to a site-specific standard, or variance if it is required, that uses FEMA-recommended elevations and precautions for basement areas outside of the HI_22 subwatershed. Considerations for a site- specific proposal are listed below and can be verified during the permit review. Compliance with the final site- specific standard requirements will also be verified at final permit closeout. • Reduction in the freeboard, a deeper basement, may have the effect to increase the exposure to flood risk through groundwater. The complete proposal for a site-specific standard shall describe engineered systems to reduce the foundation system vulnerability to that increased groundwater flood risk. The offset of increased exposure by creating an engineered foundation system and reducing the system vulnerability could create the basis for City approval of a site-specific standard for this constrained site. • The complete proposal shall identify ways to eliminate or minimize public risks such as removing sanitary connected floor drains and creating an overhead sanitary sewer connection. • The complete proposal shall demonstrate compliance with the Simplified Approach design requirements listed in the attached FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01on page 15 and 16 of the document and the conditions listed on page 17 of the document. The front yard draining to HI_6, has a local 1%-annual-chance flood elevation of 902.7’. The engineer shall indicate this elevation on the stormwater management plan and indicate no net fill or demonstrate no net increase in risk. Additionally, the lowest opening elevation at the front of the structure is required at no less than 904.7’. Based on the grade adjacent to the proposed home of 906.3’, the lowest opening elevation requirement it met. The applicant should include the proposed lowest opening elevation on the revised survey. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. The applicant proposes to use the driveway entrance at Interlachen Blvd as a construction entrance. Pictures of the existing apron shall be taken prior to demo and construction, as replacement at project closeout may be required if damaged. Street and Driveway Entrance The applicant proposes to relocate and replace the existing driveway entrances. A driveway entrance permit will be required. Bywood West was milled and overlaid in 2005 and is planned for reconstructed in 2026. Refer to standard plates 540 and 543 for patching requirements on Bywood West. Interlachen Blvd was milled and overlaid in 2019. Refer to standard plates 540 and 541 for patching requirements on Interlachen Blvd. Public Utilities Water and sanitary is served to Lot 2 from Bywood West. A one-inch water service line from the curb stop to the dwelling is required per the City’s policy SP-024. Miscellaneous A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. A sealed well is located on Lot 2 and an unsealed well is located on Lot 5. Thus, coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will be required for the well on Lot 5. Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Project: 23270354.00 Stormwater Management General Engineering The following technical memorandum summarizes hydrologic and hydraulic evaluation of the proposed 4904 Bywood West grading and redevelopment project. The memorandum summarizes existing local flooding in the vicinity of 4904 Bywood West and evaluates the impact of proposed redevelopment on flooding within the HI_22 landlocked basin (see Figure 1) and neighboring drainage areas. Executive Summary The 4904 Bywood West property is located near the intersection of Bywood West and Interlachen Boulevard. The northeast portion of the lot drains east towards Bywood West, and the southwest portion of the lot drains to the landlocked HI_22 basin as shown on Figure 1. Under existing conditions, the 1% annal exceedance probability event (1% AEP event) results in a maximum water surface elevation (MWSE) of 903.7-feet, potentially impacting one structure within the basin (5904 Interlachen Boulevard). Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) reviewed and evaluated potential impacts of proposed grading and redevelopment outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) using the City of Edina’s (City) Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model. The proposed grading and redevelopment plan outlined in the Stormwater Management memo includes (a) regrading of portions of the lot within both the HI_22 and HI_6 subwatersheds, (b) addition of approximately 12,623 sf of new impervious surfaces, (c) modification of the overflow drainage direction of the HI_22 landlocked basin, (d) installation of a 1,360 cf underground infiltration BMP, and (e) construction of a small detention basin in the backlot portion of 4904 Bywood West. The impact of proposed grading and redevelopment during the 1% AEP event (i.e., the 100-year, 24-hour Atlas 14 event, MSE3 distribution) was evaluated to determine if the proposed stormwater management plan is protective of nearby structures. The City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP; Edina, 2018) stipulates that structures that are within or adjacent to a landlocked basin must have a lowest floor elevation that is at least two feet above the water level resulting from two concurrent 1% AEP events. For this reason, the back-to-back 1% AEP event was also evaluated for existing and proposed conditions. Existing and proposed condition MWSEs for the HI_22 and HI_6 subwatersheds for modeled design events are summarized below in Table 1. In the proposed condition, HI_22 is split into two subwatersheds (HI_22 and HI_22a) to model the drainage area to the proposed detention basin in the backyard of 4904 Bywood To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 2 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx West. HI_22a and HI_22 in the proposed condition are directly comparable to HI_22 in the existing condition. Table 1 shows that proposed conditions result in a 0.32 ft increase in the HI_22a subwatershed (the subwatershed to the proposed detention basin in the backlot portion of 4904 Bywood West) and a 0.06 ft increase in the HI_22 subwatershed 1% AEP event flood elevation (see Figure 2). The increase in flood elevation is caused by the reduction in available stormwater storage volume due to site grading and proposed fill and the proposed increase in impervious surface area. Despite the redevelopment plan providing an underground infiltration BMP that meets watershed district requirements (> 1.1 inches of runoff from new impervious area), proposed grading results in net fill within the flood inundation area, reducing total available storage volume. The increase in the 1% AEP MWSE has the potential to impact one (1) structure within the HI_22 subwatershed (5904 Interlachen Boulevard) but does not appear to impact structures within the HI_22a subwatershed. Table 1 also shows that proposed conditions result in a minimal increase in the HI_22a and HI_22 flood elevations for the back-to-back 1% AEP event (increase of 0.01 ft), and no impacts to flood elevations in the neighboring HI_6 subwatershed for design events evaluated. It is recommended that proposed grading be reviewed and adjusted to provide more storage within the HI_22a and/or HI_22 subwatershed to minimize or eliminate increase in flood risk within the HI_22 basin. The following technical memorandum outlines development of modeling inputs for existing and proposed conditions, presents key results related to evaluation of the impact of proposed conditions on flood risk, and provides conclusions and recommendations related to proposed redevelopment plan for 4904 Bywood West. Table 1 Comparison of flood elevations in the vicinity of 4904 Bywood West Subwatershed ID Design Event MWSE (NGVD29, feet) 1 1% AEP Back-to-Back 1% AEP Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Increase (ft) Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Increase (ft) HI_22 HI_22a 903.66 903.98 0.32 905.01 905.02 0.01 HI_22 903.72 0.06 905.02 0.01 HI_6 HI_6 902.73 902.73 0.00 902.74 902.74 0.00 1 Edina XPSWMM flood elevations are typically reported to one tenth foot accuracy. Additional accuracy provided in this table to highlight impact of proposed conditions. To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 3 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx Figure 1 4904 Bywood West study area location and existing condition 1% AEP flooding elevation. Figure 2 Increase in 1% AEP flood elevation (proposed flooding elevations minus existing flooding elevation) 4904 Bywood West Label key: 904 = proposed 1% AEP MWSE +0.32 = increase in 1% AEP MWSE (ft) To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 4 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx 1.0 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling: XPSWMM The City’s Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model was updated and used to evaluate existing conditions and proposed conditions described in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020). Model updates were incorporated using methodology and source data outlined in the 2018 Edina CRWMP (Edina, 2018). The following subsections describe updates made to the existing conditions XPSWMM model and all updates associated with the proposed grading and redevelopment plan (proposed conditions). 1.1 Existing Conditions The following updates were incorporated into the City’s existing Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model. The cumulative result of all updates described below was an increase in the 1% AEP flood elevation of HI_22 from 903.4-feet to 903.7-feet (see Figure 1). 1.1.1 Removal of modeled outlet from HI_22 (landlocked) A 12-inch outlet from HI_22 to HI_6 was originally included in the XPSWMM model. Upon field review conducted by City staff, it was determined that no outlet from HI_22 exists, and that the basin is a landlocked feature. The applicant’s engineer described in conversation with the City that the HI_22 wet pond water elevation may currently be controlled by pumping conducted by private parties. 1.1.2 Update to modeled pond normal water level The HI_22 wet pond normal water level (NWL) elevation was originally established by the assumed 12-inch outlet elevation from the HI_22 basin (901-feet). After determining the pond does not have an outlet (Section 1.1.1), the City requested a new starting NWL be established based on review of historic aerial imagery and available digital elevation data. Best available digital elevation data (2011 LiDAR, Hennepin County) shows a minimum elevation within the HI_22 basin of 899.3-feet. Aerial imagery from 1992 to August of 2020 (Appendix A) was reviewed. Review of historic imagery shows that the water surface elevations is typically contained within the 900.5-foot contour. For this reason, a starting water surface elevation of 900.5-feet was selected as the revised NWL for HI_22. 1.1.3 Other hydrologic and hydraulic updates The HI_22 subwatershed divide was reviewed and updated to better reflect the drainage area to the HI_22 basin. The corrected subwatershed to HI_22 is 1.937 acres (previously 2.168 acres). The original and updated subwatershed divides in the vicinity of 4904 Bywood Ave are shown in Figure 3. The subwatershed storage stage-area data for HI_22 was updated based on the revised subwatershed divide. To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 5 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx In addition to the subwatershed area update, a zero percent detention (ZPD) value for HI_22 was added. The ZPD percentage value defines the fraction of directly connected impervious area which is open water and therefore has no depression storage. ZPD associated with the existing HI_22 wet pond was not captured in the original hydrologic inputs developed for HI_22. ZPD was calculated using the Edina 2016 land use data described in the Edina CWRMP (Edina, 2018). Figure 3 Updated subwatershed divides (updated divide shown in yellow, original divide in orange) 1.2 Proposed Conditions Proposed conditions outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) were reviewed and incorporated into a proposed conditions XPSWMM model. Updates incorporated into the proposed condition XPSWMM model are summarized in the following subsections. 1.2.1 Proposed grading plan: subwatershed and drainage pattern update The proposed grading plan and roof plan detail were georeferenced in ArcMap and used to update the subwatershed drainage divide to (a) the HI_22 wet pond and (b) the proposed detention basin located on the 4904 Bywood West property. The HI_22 subwatershed was subdivided to model the drainage area to the proposed detention basin (HI_22a, see Figure 4). Site grading near the 4904 Bywood west property results in a minor increase in the total drainage area to the HI_22 wet pond (1.960 acres proposed conditions compared to 1.937 acres in existing conditions). Hydrologic inputs for the proposed conditions model are discussed further in Section 1.2.3). To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 6 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx In addition to modifying the drainage area to the HI_22 basin, proposed grading alters the location of the emergency overflow (EOF) from HI_22 as shown in Figure 4. In existing conditions, during large rainfall events (e.g., the back-to-back 1% AEP event), overflow from the HI_22 drains along the south portion of the 4904 Bywood West lot east towards Bywood West at an elevation of 905.0-feet. In proposed conditions, the emergency overflow elevation remains the same (905.0-feet) but is shifted to the western edge of the property as shown in Figure 4 (i.e., the proposed grading blocks the existing overflow near the structure and creates a new overflow along the western edge of the property). As discussed in Section 2.0, the 1% AEP event does not access the emergency overflow elevation during existing or proposed conditions, meaning shifting the location of the emergency overflow does not alter drainage patterns during the 1% AEP design event. Figure 4 Proposed condition subwatershed divides, proposed grading contours, and HI_22 basin emergency overflow drainage update. 1.2.2 Proposed grading plan: storage stage-area update As shown in Figure 4, the proposed grading plan was georeferenced in ArcMap and used to define the storage stage-area data for the HI_22a and HI_22 subwatersheds. The grading plan proposes fill to create a berm between the backyard detention basin and the HI_22a, a fill within the backyard detention basin footprint, and cut along the western edge of the property to construct the sport court and outbuilding (establishing the new EOF location as described in Section 1.2.3 and shown in Figure 4). The result of the proposed grading plan is a reduction in stage-area and cumulative surface storage volume beginning at the 902-foot contour as shown below in Table 2 and Figure 5. Existing EOF location (altered by site grading near structure) Proposed EOF location To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 7 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx Table 2 Comparison of existing and proposed cumulative storage (combined HI_22a and HI_22) Elevation (ft, NGVD29) Storage Area (sf) Cumulative Storage (cf) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Diff. (cf) 1 899.3 4 4 0 0 0 900.0 6,587 6,587 2,340 2,340 0 900.2 6,972 6,972 3,696 3,696 0 900.4 7,307 7,307 5,124 5,124 0 900.6 7,628 7,628 6,617 6,617 0 900.8 7,943 7,943 8,174 8,174 0 901.0 8,277 8,350 9,796 9,804 7 902.0 13,769 11,726 20,820 19,842 -978 903.0 20,641 19,844 38,025 35,626 -2,398 904.0 32,371 31,112 64,531 61,104 -3,426 905.0 42,676 41,465 102,054 97,393 -4,661 906.0 57,896 49,555 152,340 142,903 -9,437 1 Difference in cumulative storage (proposed storage minus existing storage). Figure 5 Comparison of existing and proposed stage area (combined HI_22a and HI_22) To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 8 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx 1.2.3 Proposed redevelopment plan: hydrologic update Hydrologic parameters were generated for the HI_22a subwatershed and the updated (i.e., subdivided) HI_22 subwatershed (see Figure 4). Hydrologic parameters were developed based on review of HydroCAD model results included in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) using methodology and supplementary data sources outlined in the Edina CWRMP (Edina, 2018). The 4904 Bywood West HydroCAD model was reviewed to determine the new impervious surface area in each subwatershed within the study area (of the total 12,623 sf of new impervious area, 6,522 sf is directed towards the HI_22a basin). Using methodology outlined in the Edina CWRMP (Edina, 2018), the proposed increase in directly connected impervious area and all other impacted hydrologic parameters (e.g., watershed width, ZPD, etc.) were calculated. Existing condition and proposed condition hydrologic parameters are summarized in Table 3. Hydrologic parameters not included in Table 3 were not updated (e.g., Horton infiltration parameters). Table 3 Comparison of existing and proposed hydrologic parameters Parameter Existing Proposed HI_22 HI_22a HI_22 Total Area (ac) 1.937 0.695 1.265 DC Imp. (%) 1 29.6% 36.0% 33.0% Width (ft) 690 254 755 ZPD (%) 23% 0% 32% Pervious Ds (in) 2 0.17 0.709 3 0.17 Impervious Ds (in) 2 0.06 0.599 3 0.06 1 DC imp. = directly connected impervious fraction (%) 2 Ds = depression storage 3 Depression storage of HI_22a increased to model 1,360 cf of abstraction volume associated with underground infiltration BMP (see Section 1.2.4). 1.2.4 Proposed redevelopment plan: detention basin and underground storage The backyard detention basin in HI_22a and underground infiltration BMPs outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) were incorporated into the proposed condition model. The backyard detention basin was modeled based on the proposed grading plan (see Figure 4) and outlet details included in the Stormwater Management Memo (i.e., 12-inch HDPE equalizer pipe at 903.4 feet and EOF berm at 903.8 feet). The underground infiltration BMP was modeled as an abstraction volume from the HI_22a subwatershed. Specifically, the pervious and impervious depression storage (Ds) values of the HI_22a subwatershed were increased to create 1,360 cf of abstraction volume (1,360 cf is the total storage volume of the proposed underground infiltration BMP). The infiltration rates assumed in the Stormwater Management Memo were not modeled as a conservative modeling assumption to account for soil saturation during large rainfall events. To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 9 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx 2.0 Model Results The City requested that Barr update the City Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model and develop a proposed conditions XPSWMM model to evaluate the following: 1) Create a plausible starting elevation for this landlocked basin and confirm the 1% AEP and back- to-back 1% AEP design event flood elevations (existing conditions); 2) Review the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo to confirm that it is protective of nearby private properties; and 3) Model the proposed emergency outlet elevation to the west and confirm that there is no impact to nearby private properties for the 1% AEP event. Suggest a minimum EOF outlet elevation. Questions originally posed by the City are answered in order in the following subsections. Results from the existing and proposed conditions XPSWMM model included in the executive summary (Table 1) are also referenced within the following subsections. For this reason, results from Table 1 are repeated within this section in Table 4, below. Table 4 Comparison of flood elevations in the vicinity of 4904 Bywood West [duplicate of Table 1] Subwatershed ID Design Event MWSE (NGVD29, feet) 1 1% AEP Back-to-Back 1% AEP Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Increase (ft) Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Increase (ft) HI_22 HI_22a 903.66 903.98 0.32 905.01 905.02 0.01 HI_22 903.72 0.06 905.02 0.01 HI_6 HI_6 902.73 902.73 0.00 902.74 902.74 0.00 2 Edina XPSWMM flood elevations are typically reported to one tenth foot accuracy. Additional accuracy provided in this table to highlight impact of proposed conditions. 2.1 HI_22 starting water surface elevation and flood elevations: existing conditions As outlined in Section 1.1.2, the HI_22 starting water surface elevations (i.e., the modeled NWL) was updated based on review of best available digital elevation data (2011 LiDAR, Hennepin County) and review of historic aerial imagery (Appendix A). Review of historic imagery shows that the water surface elevation is typically contained within the 900.5-foot contour. For this reason, a starting water surface elevation of 900.5-feet was selected as the revised NWL for the HI_22 wet pond. 2.2 Determine if 4904 Bywood West stormwater management plan is protective of nearby properties As outlined in Table 4, proposed conditions outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) result in a 0.32 ft increase in the HI_22a subwatershed (the subwatershed to the proposed detention area in the backlot portion of 4904 Bywood West) and a 0.06 ft increase in the HI_22 subwatershed 1% AEP event MWSE (see Figure 2). The increase in To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 10 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx 1% AEP flooding has the potential to impact one (1) structure within the HI_22 subwatershed (5904 Interlachen Boulevard) but does not appear to impact structures within the HI_22a subwatershed. 2.3 Model the proposed EOF and suggest minimum EOF elevation The proposed grading plan shifts the location of the EOF from the east side of the HI_22 basin to the west side, but does not alter the EOF elevation of 905.0-feet (see Figure 4 and discussion in Section 1.2.1). The 1% AEP flood elevations for both existing conditions (903.7-feet) and proposed conditions (HI_22: 903.7- feet; HI_22a: 904.0-feet) are below the EOF (905.0-feet), meaning that shifting the EOF locations does not impact nearby subwatersheds during the 1% AEP event. To avoid impacting the neighboring HI_20 and HI_21 subwatersheds to the west, the EOF from the HI_22 basin should be maintained above the 1% AEP flood elevation (i.e., the EOF elevations should be high enough to prevent overflow from HI_22 to HI_20 during the 1% AEP event). Based on proposed conditions, the minimum EOF should be maintained above 904.0-feet (see 1% AEP MWSEs outlined in Table 4). It is recommended that the EOF be maintained at the existing elevation of 905.0-feet to provide 1-foot of freeboard and to provide resiliency for future climate conditions. 3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Proposed conditions outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) were evaluated using the City’s Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model. Based on this evaluation, it was determined that proposed conditions outlined in the Stormwater Management Memo result in a minor increase in 1% AEP flood elevations in the HI_22a and HI_22 basins, potentially impacting one structure in the HI_22 basin (5904 Interlachen Boulevard). For this reason, Barr recommends that the proposed grading plan be reviewed to determine if more storage can be provided within the HI_22a and/or HI_22 basin (i.e., balance cut/fill within the 1% AEP (903.7-feet) flood inundation area). In addition to the recommendation related to grading (above), Barr proposes the following recommendations to minimize risk to structures within the HI_22 basin and within neighboring subwatersheds: • Verify the low-entry elevation of structures within the HI_22a and HI_22 basins (in particular, 5904 Interlachen Boulevard which is potentially impacted during the 1% AEP design event). • The minimum EOF should be maintained above 904.0-feet (see 1% AEP MWSEs outlined in Table 4). It is recommended that the EOF be maintained at the existing elevation of 905.0-feet to provide 1-foot of freeboard and to provide resiliency for future climate conditions. • Coordinate with private entities performing pumping of the HI_22 basin to establish a pumping operation protocol (e.g., pump the basin to an elevation of 900.5-feet within 24-hours of a rainfall event). • Provide a designed and protected overflow connection between the HI_22a detention basin and HI_22 wet pond (note: may already be considered in proposed design). To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 11 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx • Provide a designed and protected EOF from the HI_22 basin to the west (consider routing the EOF around the proposed sport court and outbuilding). References Barr Engineering Co. (Barr). 2018. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Edina. Solution Blue, Inc. 2020. 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo. Revised August 27, 2020. Prepared on behalf of Boyer Builders. To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 12 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx Appendix A Historic Imagery of HI_22 Wet Pond Google EarthDate: 4/21/2020Source: 2020 Maxar Technologies Google EarthDate: 4/28/2018Source: not specified Google EarthDate: 4/3/2018Source: not specified Google EarthDate: 2/28/2006Source: U.S. Geological Service Google EarthDate: 4/21/2003Source: 2020 Maxar Technologies Google EarthDate: 4/26/1992Source: U.S. Geological Service Home foundation examples in green Examples of not-adjacent, adjacent, and within basin. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 Bywood Lege nd Addresses Contours - 2f t In dex In termedia te Fl oodzones - 100 year Subwa tersheds Ou tl et In let Grav ity Main Colle ctor, Aban done d Colle ctor, Active Se ptember 14, 2 020 1 in = 100 f t / HL_22 (landlocked) Permanent water body 10yr-902.4 100yr-903.4 (Void / Assumes 12" CMP outlet) 100yr-904.0 (assumed based on preliminary BARR model run) B2B 100yr 905.1 Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 62nd Street Lege nd Addresses Contours - 2f t In dex In termedia te Fl oodzones - 100 year Subwa tersheds Ou tl et In let Grav ity Main Colle ctor, Aban done d Colle ctor, Active Se ptember 14, 2 020 1 in = 100 f t / LP_21 (landlocked) Permanent water body 10yr-861.3 100yr-863.9 Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 Townes Rd Lege nd Addresses Contours - 2f t In dex In termedia te Fl oodzones - 100 year Subwa tersheds Ou tl et In let Grav ity Main Colle ctor, Aban done d Colle ctor, Active Se ptember 14, 2 020 1 in = 100 f t / MNH_12 (not -landlocked, outlets in <10yr event) No permanent water body 10yr-880.4 100yr-880.5 MNH_11(Landlocked,) Permanent water body 10yr-873.9 100yr-876.8 Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 Halifax Ave Lege nd Addresses Contours - 2f t In dex In termedia te Fl oodzones - 10 year Fl oodzones - 100 year Subwa tersheds Ou tl et In let Grav ity Main Colle ctor, Aban done d Colle ctor, Active Se ptember 14, 2 020 1 in = 100 f t / Not landlocked, connected to stormwater system MNH_87(landlocked, outlets in >10yr event, equalizes with road flood in 100 yr, water spills in / backflows from road to basin in 10 and 100) No permanent water body 10yr-877,5 100yr-878.3 Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 France/Scott T er Lege nd Addresses Contours - 2f t In dex In termedia te Fl oodzones - 100 year Subwa tersheds Ou tl et In let Grav ity Main Colle ctor, Aban done d Colle ctor, Active Se ptember 14, 2 020 1 in = 100 f t / MS_17 (landlocked) No permanent water body 10yr-900.7 100yr-902.6 108.088 2 °89.0239°//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // // // // // ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////905905905905903904 906906907905 905905 905905901902902903903903 903 903903904904 904904904904 906906 9 0 6 906906907908908909909907.49907.50907.50907.50907.50TW 907.00BW 905.00TW 906.44902.52C 907.36C 907.31C 907.27C 907.43C 907.31C 907.38C 907.45C 907.44C 907.43C 907.38C 907.35907.54906.29906.30906.30906.30906.30906.30906.30905.76905.82905.63905.73906.28906.30906.28BW 906.60BW 907.06TW 907.48TW 907.15TW 905.43BW 905.00905.29904.02902.28902.39903.64904.17905.29904.98905.34905.54905.69C 905.79C 905.55C 905.79C 905.55905.58905.25904.99904.71C 905.39C 905.39904.41904.17904.00903.59903.82905.27905.28MA 903.92±903.79903.82903.57903.82904.00903.82MA 901.64±MA 901.91±MA 903.45±MA 903.78±MA 903.77±-3.0%- 0 . 4% - 0 . 3%-0.6%- 2 . 4% - 2 . 3%0.3%-0.3%-1.3%- 1 . 4% - 3 . 1% - 3 . 8% - 5 . 4% - 1 . 7% - 2 . 8% - 2 . 0% - 6 . 8% - 4 . 9%909.50909.00906.95909.00907.49EOF 903.80 BW 905.07BW 905.00C 904.68902.26C 904.68C 904.87C 904.85903.00BYWOODSUBWATERSHEDLIMITSAPPROX STORMSHELTER EXTENTS09-16-20201"=60' July 24, 2020 HGTS Project Number: 20-0593 Mr. John Boyer Boyer Building Corporation 3435 County Road 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Single Family Home, 4904 Bywood West, Edina, Minnesota Dear Mr. Boyer: We have completed the geotechnical exploration report for the proposed home at the above referenced address. A brief summary of our results and recommendations is presented below. Specific details regarding our procedures, results and recommendations follow in the attached geotechnical exploration report. One soil boring was completed for this project that encountered a pavement section at the surface underlain by native glacial till deposits composed of silty clayey sand, silty sand and clayey sand that extended to the termination depth of the boring. Groundwater was not encountered in the boring while drilling and sampling or after removing the augers from the borehole. In the pavement section and any vegetation and topsoil are not suitable for foundation support and will need to be removed from with the proposed building and oversize areas and replaced, as need, with suitable compacted engineered fill to attain design grades. It is our opinion the underlying native glacial till is suitable for foundation support. With the building pad prepared as recommended it is our opinion that the foundations for the proposed building can be designed for a net allowable soil bearing capacity up to 2,000 pounds per square foot. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Lucas Mol at 612-297-4108 or Paul Gionfriddo at 612- 729-2959. Sincerely, Haugo GeoTechnical Services Paul Gionfriddo, P.E. Lucas Mol Senior Engineer Senior Project Manager GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Single Family Home 4904 Bywood West Edina, Minnesota PREPARED FOR: Boyer Building Corporation 3435 County Road 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 PREPARED BY: Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407 Haugo GeoTechnical Services Project: 20-0593 July 24, 2020 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Paul Gionfriddo, P.E. Senior Engineer License Number: 23093 Expires: June 2022 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Purpose 1 1.3 Site Description 1 1.4 Scope of Services 1 1.5 Documents Provided 1 1.6 Locations and Elevations 2 2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES 2 3.0 RESULTS 3 3.1 Soil Conditions 3 3.2 Groundwater 3 3.3 OSHA Soil Classification 4 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 4.1 Proposed Construction 4 4.2 Discussion 4 4.3 Site Grading Recommendations 5 4.4 Dewatering 6 4.5 Interior Slabs 6 4.6 Below Grade Walls 7 4.7 Exterior Slabs 7 4.8 Site Grading and Drainage 8 4.9 Utilities 8 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 9 5.1 Excavation 9 5.2 Observations 9 5.3 Backfill and Fills 9 5.4 Testing 9 5.5 Winter Construction 9 6.0 PROCEDURES 10 6.1 Soil Classification 10 6.2 Groundwater Observations 10 7.0 GENERAL 10 7.1 Subsurface Variations 10 7.2 Review of Design 10 7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations 10 7.4 Use of Report 11 7.5 Level of Care 11 APPENDIX Boring Locations Sketch and GPS Coordinates, Figure 1 Soil Boring Log, SB-1 Descriptive Terminology 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description Boyer Building Corporation (Boyer), is preparing to construct a new home at 4904 Bywood West in Edina, Minnesota and retained Haugo GeoTechnical Services (HGTS) to perform a geotechnical exploration to evaluate the characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions to evaluate the suitability of site soil conditions to support a single-family home. More specifically, we understand the home may be in a flood zone and because of that the groundwater level below the site was of particular concern. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and provide recommendations for foundation design and construction. 1.3 Site Description The project site is at 4904 Bywood West in Edina, Minnesota. At the time of our exploration, a single-family home existed on the property which we understand will be removed and replaced with a new home. Areas around the home were landscaped and the ground surface was generally relatively flat with elevations across the site ranging from about 902 to 905 ½ feet above mean sea level (MSL). 1.4 Scope of Services Our services were performed in accordance with the Haugo GeoTechnical Services proposal 20-0593 dated July 14, 2020. Our scope of services was performed under the terms of our General Conditions and limited to the following tasks: • Completing one (1) standard penetration test (SPT) soil boring to a nominal depth of 20 feet. • Sealing the boring in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health requirements. • Obtaining GPS coordinates and ground surface elevation at the soil boring location. • Visually/manually classifying samples recovered from the soil boring. • Preparing a soil boring log describing the materials encountered and the results of groundwater level measurements. • Preparing an engineering report describing soil and groundwater conditions and providing recommendations for foundation design and construction. 1.5 Documents Provided We were provided a “Building Permit Survey – Stonewood Design” (Survey) prepared by Frank R Cardarelle, Land surveyor and dated January 21, 2018. The survey showed a layout of the property with the existing structures and provided survey and topographic information. The proposed soil boring location was hand sketched onto the Survey. 2 Except for the Survey, specific architectural, structural or civil plans were not available at the time of this geotechnical evaluation. 1.6 Locations and Elevations The soil boring location was selected by Boyer. The approximate location of the soil boring is shown on Figure 1, “Soil Boring Location Sketch,” in the Appendix. The sketch was prepared by HGTS using the Survey provided as a base. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were obtained by HGTS using GPS measuring equipment. Elevations were based on the MN County Coordinates System (Hennepin County). GPS Coordinates at the boring locations are also provided in Figure 1 in the Appendix. 2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES One (1) standard penetration test (SPT) boring was advanced on July 16, 2020 by HGTS with a rotary drilling rig, using continuous flight augers to advance the borehole. Representative samples were obtained from the boring, using the split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration is recorded as the standard penetration resistance value, or "N" value. The results of the standard penetration tests are indicated on the boring log. The samples were sealed in containers and provided to HGTS for testing and soil classification. Field logs of the boring was prepared by HGTS. The log contains visual classifications of the soil materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples and water observation notes. The final boring log included with this report represents an interpretation of the field log and includes modifications based on visual/manual method observation of the samples. The soil boring log, general terminology for soil description and identification, and classification of soils for engineering purposes are also included in the appendix. The soil boring log identifies and describes the materials encountered, the relative density or consistency based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N-value, “blows per foot”) and groundwater observations. The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the samples and auger cuttings. The depths shown as changes between strata are only approximate. The changes are likely transitions, variations can occur beyond the location of the boring. 3 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Soil Conditions At the surface, the soil boring encountered a pavement section consisting of about 4 inches of bituminous and about 4 inches of apparent aggregate base. Approximately 1 foot of silty clayey sand Fill was encountered below the pavement section. Below the pavement section and Fill the boring encountered native glacial till soils consisting of silty clayey sand, silty sand and clayey sand that extended to the termination depth of the boring. These soils generally correspond to the ASTM Classifications SC-SM, SM and SC, respectively. N-Values within the native glacial till soils ranged from 4 to 36 bpf but ranged from 4 to 9 bpf to a depth of about 15 feet below the ground surface. These values indicate the soil had a very loose to loose relative density to a depth of about 15 feet and had a medium dense to dense relative density below that depth. 3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the soil boring while drilling and sampling or after withdrawing of the augers from the borehole. Water levels were measured on the dates as noted on the boring log and the period of water level observations was relatively short. Given the silty and clayey composition of the soils encountered, it is possible that insufficient time was available for groundwater to seep into the boring and rise to its hydrostatic level. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in the groundwater levels should be expected. Groundwater monitoring wells or piezometers in conjunction with deeper soil boring(s) would be required to more accurately determine water levels. 3.3 Laboratory Testing Laboratory moisture content tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the soil boring. Table 1 below summarizes the results of the laboratory tests. Results of the laboratory moisture content tests are also shown on the boring log adjacent to the sample tested. Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Tests Boring Number Sample Number Depth (feet) Moisture Content (%) * SB-1 SS-3 5 16 SB-1 SS-6 13 20 ½ * Moisture Content tests were rounded to the nearest ½ percent. 4 3.4 OSHA Soil Classification The soils encountered at the anticipated excavation depths consisted of very loose to loose native glacial till deposits consisting of; silty clayey sand, silty sand and clayey sand corresponding to the ASTM Classifications SC-SM, SM and SC, respectively. These soils will generally be Type C soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Proposed Construction Specific architectural, structural or civil construction plans were not available at the time of this geotechnical evaluation. Based on correspondence with Boyer we understand the new home will have a basement level with 1 or 2 stories above grade. Based on the Survey provided the main floor to the existing home is at 906.2 and we assume the main floor for the new home will be constructed at or near that elevation. The basement floor slab is assumed to be constructed about 9 feet below that corresponding to about elevation 897.2. We anticipate below grade construction consisting of cast-in-place concrete or concrete masonry block foundation walls supported on concrete spread footings. The above grade construction will consist of wood framing, a pitched roof and asphalt shingles. Based on the assumed construction we estimate wall loadings will range from about 1 to 2 kips (1,000 to 2,000 pounds) per lineal foot and column loads, if any will be less than 50 kips (50,000 pounds). If the proposed loads exceed these values, the proposed grades differ by more than 2 feet from the assumed values or if the design or location of the proposed building changes, we should be informed. Additional analyses and revised recommendations may be necessary. 4.2 Discussion Structures existed on the project site which we assume will be removed/demolished to make way for the proposed home. We recommend that all remnants of the structures including; driveways, sidewalks, foundations, foundation walls, floor slabs and any underground utilities be removed from within the proposed building and oversize areas and be properly disposed of off-site. Any vegetation and topsoil and very loose/very soft Fill are compressible and are not suitable for foundation support. These materials will need to be removed from below the building and oversize areas and replaced as needed with suitable compacted engineered fill. Since the new 5 home will include a basement level, removal of these materials will likely be incidental to construction. It is our opinion that the underlying native glacial till soils are generally suitable for foundation support. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings while drilling and sampling or after removal of the auger from the boreholes. We generally do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during construction. With the building pads prepared as recommended, it is our opinion the footings can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design and construction. 4.3 Site Grading Recommendations Excavation We recommend that all vegetation, topsoil, Fill, and any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils, if encountered, be removed from below the proposed building and oversize areas. We recommend that all remnants of former structures such as footings, floor slabs, foundation walls and underground utilities be removed from within the building and oversize area. Any loose soils or soils disturbed during excavation activities should be surface compacted to increase their density and uniformity prior to engineered fill and/or footing placement. Table 2 below summarizes the anticipated minimum excavation depths at the soil boring location. Excavation depths may vary and could be deeper. Table 2. Anticipated Excavation Depths Boring Number Estimated Surface Elevation (feet) Anticipated Excavation Depth (feet)* Anticipated Excavation Elevation (feet)* SB-1 905.7 4 901 ½ * = Excavation were rounded to nearest ½ foot. Oversizing In areas where the excavations extend below the proposed footing elevations, the excavations require oversizing. We recommend the perimeter of the excavation be extended a foot outside the proposed footprint for every foot below footing grade (1H:1V oversizing). The purpose of the oversizing is to provide lateral support of the foundation. Fill Material Fill required to attain site grades may consist of any debris-free, non-organic mineral soil. The on-site native glacial till soils appear generally suitable for reuse as structural fill, provided they are free of organic matter or other deleterious material. However, portions of the soils will likely require moisture conditioning (wetting or drying) to achieve proper compaction. We recommend that fill or backfill placed in wet excavations or within 2 feet of the groundwater table, if encountered, consist of granular soil (sand) with less than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve and at least 50 percent retained on the number 40 sieve. 6 Topsoil, organic soils or soils that are black in color are not suitable for reuse as structural fill or backfill. Backfilling We recommend that backfill placed to attain site grades be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). Granular fill classified as SP or SP-SM, if used, should be placed within 65 percent to 105 percent of its optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. Other fill soils should be placed within 3 percentage points above and 1 percentage point below its optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. All fill should be placed in thin lifts and be compacted with a large self-propelled vibratory compactor operating in vibratory mode. Foundations We recommend the perimeter footings bear a minimum of 42 inches below the exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings may be placed immediately below the slab provided construction does not occur during below freezing weather conditions. Foundation elements in unheated areas (i.e. deck or porch footings) should bear at least 5 feet below exterior grade for frost protection. We anticipate the foundations and floor slabs will bear on compacted engineered fill or native glacial till soils. With the building pad prepared as recommended, it is our opinion the footings can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). We anticipate total and differential settlement of the foundations will be less than 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively, across a 30-foot span. 4.4 Dewatering Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings. We generally do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during construction and do not anticipate that dewatering will be required. 4.5 Interior Slabs The anticipated floor subgrade will consist of compacted engineered fill or native silty and clayey sand soils. It is our opinion a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pounds per square inch of deflection (psi) may be used to design the floor. If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the concrete slab will be used, we recommend that a vapor retarder or vapor barrier be placed immediately beneath the slab. Some contractors prefer to bury the vapor barrier or vapor retarder beneath a layer of sand to reduce curling and shrinkage, but this practice often traps water between the slab and vapor retarder or barrier. Regardless of where the vapor retarder or vapor barrier is placed, we recommend consulting the floor covering manufacturer regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or vapor barrier to preserve the warranty. We recommend following all state and local building codes with regards to a radon mitigation plan beneath interior slabs. 7 4.6 Below Grade Walls Foundation walls or below grade (basement) walls will have lateral loads from the surrounding soil transmitted to them. We recommend general waterproofing of the below grade walls. We recommend either placing drainage composite against the backs of the exterior walls or backfilling adjacent to the walls with sand having less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing the #40 sieve and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. The sand backfill should be placed within 2 feet horizontally of the wall. We recommend the balance of the backfill for the walls consist of sand however the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. We recommend installing drain tile behind the below grade walls, adjacent to the wall footing and below the slab elevation. Preferably the drain tile should consist of perforated pipe embedded in gravel. A geotextile filter fabric should encase the pipe and gravel. The drain tile should be routed to a storm sewer, sump pump or other suitable disposal site. Active earth pressures can be used to design the below grade walls if the walls are allowed to rotate slightly. If wall rotation cannot be tolerated, then below grade wall design should be based on at-rest earth pressures. We recommend soil parameters found below in Table 3, be used for below grade/retaining wall design. These design parameters are based on the assumptions that the walls are drained, there are no surcharge loads within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall and the backfill is level. Table 3. Estimated Soil Parameters Soil Type Estimated Unit Weight (pcf) Estimated Friction Angle (degrees) At-Rest Pressure (pcf) Active Soil Pressure (pcf) Passive Soil Pressure (pcf) Sand (SP & SP-SM) 120 32 55 35 390 Other Soils (SC, SC-SM, SM) 135 28 70 50 375 Resistance to lateral earth pressures will be provided by passive resistance against the wall footings and by sliding resistance along the bottom of the wall footings. We recommend a sliding coefficient of 0.35. This value does not include a factor of safety. 4.7 Exterior Slabs The exterior slabs will likely be underlain by silty and clayey soils which are considered moderately to highly frost susceptible. If these soils become saturated or freeze, frost heave may occur. This heave can be a nuisance in front of doors and at other critical grade areas. One way to help reduce the potential for heaving is to remove the frost-susceptible soils below the slabs down to bottom of footing grades and replace them with non-frost-susceptible backfill consisting of sand having less than 5 percent of the particles be weight passing the number 200 sieve. If this approach is used and the excavation bottoms terminate in non-free draining granular soil, we recommend a drain tile be installed along the bottom outer edges of excavation to 8 collect and remove any water that may accumulate within the sand. The bottom of the excavation should be graded away from the building. If the banks of the excavations to remove the frost-susceptible soils are not sloped, abrupt transitions between the frost-susceptible and non-frost-susceptible backfill will exist along which unfavorable amounts of differential heaving may occur. Such transitions could exist between exterior slabs and sidewalks, between exterior slabs and pavements and along the slabs themselves if the excavations are confined to only the building entrances. To address this issue, we recommend sloping the excavations to remove frost-susceptible soils at a minimum 3:1 (horizonal:vertical) gradient. Another alternative for reducing frost heave is to support the slabs on frost depth footings. A void space of at least 4 inches should be provided between the slab and the underlying soil to allow the soil to heave without affecting the slabs. 4.8 Site Grading and Drainage We recommend the site be graded to provide positive run-off away from the proposed home. We recommend landscaped areas be sloped a minimum of 6 inches within 10 feet of the building and slabs be sloped a minimum of 2 inches. In addition, we recommend downspouts with long splash blocks or extensions. We recommend the lowest floor grades be constructed to maintain at least a 4-foot separation between the lowest floor slab and the observed groundwater levels and at least a 2-foot separation between the lowest floor slab and the 100-year flood level of nearby wetlands, storm water ponds or other surface water features. 4.9 Utilities We anticipate that new utilities will likely be installed as part of this project. We further anticipate that new utilities will bear at depths ranging from about 7 to 10 feet below the ground surface. At these depths, we anticipate that the pipes will bear on compacted engineered fill or native glacial till soils which in our opinion are suitable for pipe support. We recommend that all vegetation, topsoil and any soft or otherwise unsuitable soil be removed from below the pipe invert elevations. We recommend bedding material be thoroughly compacted around the pipes. We recommend trench backfill above the pipes be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent beneath slabs and pavements, the exception being within 3 feet of the proposed pavement subgrade, where 100 percent of standard Proctor density is required. In landscaped areas, we recommend a minimum compaction of 90 percent. Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during utility construction and do not anticipate that dewatering will be required. 9 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Excavation The soils encountered at the anticipated excavation depths consisted of very loose to loose native glacial till deposits consisting of; silty clayey sand, silty sand and clayey sand corresponding to the ASTM Classifications SC-SM, SM and SC, respectively. These soils will generally be Type C soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. Temporary excavations in Type C soils should be constructed at a minimum of 1 ½ feet horizontal to every 1 foot vertical within excavations. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of slopes with these dimensions, then temporary shoring may be required. 5.2 Observations A geotechnical engineer or qualified engineering technician should observe the excavation subgrade to evaluate if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered in the borings and adequate to support the proposed construction. 5.3 Backfill and Fills We recommend moisture conditioning (drying or wetting) all soils that will be used as fill or backfill in accordance with Section 4.3 above. We recommend that fill and backfill be placed in lifts not exceeding 4 to 12 inches, depending on the size of the compactor and materials used. 5.4 Testing We recommend density tests of backfill and fills placed for the proposed house foundations. Samples of the proposed materials should be submitted to our laboratory prior to placement for evaluation of their suitability and to determine their optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (Standard Proctor). 5.5 Winter Construction If site grading and construction is anticipated to proceed during cold weather, all snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading and placement of fill. No fill should be placed on frozen soil and no frozen soil should be used as fill or backfill. Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM and/or ACI. Concrete should not be placed on frozen soil. Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is obtained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below the footings. 10 6.0 PROCEDURES 6.1 Soil Classification The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the boring(s) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedure).” Soil terminology notes are included in the Appendix. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review of the field classification by a soils engineer. Samples will be retained for a period of 30 days. 6.2 Groundwater Observations Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottom of the boring, the hole was checked for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after removing the augers from the borehole the hole was once again checked and the depth to water and cave-in depths were noted. 7.0 GENERAL 7.1 Subsurface Variations The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from a limited number of soil borings. Variations can occur away from the borings, the nature of which may not become apparent until additional exploration work is completed, or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program during construction to evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes have affected the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the designs, specifications and construction methods. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings and test pits and will provide continuity of professional responsibility. 7.2 Review of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed structures as related to us for preparation of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the design and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes have affected the validity of the recommendations and whether our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. 7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations We made water level measurements in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. The data was interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively short and fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to 11 rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. 7.4 Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of Boyer Building Corporation and their design team to use to design the proposed structures and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analysis and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. 7.5 Level of Care Haugo GeoTechnical Services has used the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under similar circumstance by members of the profession currently practicing in this locality. No warranty expressed or implied is made. APPENDIX Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC 2825 Cedar Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55407 Figure #: 1 Drawn By: RD Date: 7/20/20 Scale: None Project #: 20-0593 Soil Boring Location Sketch 4904 Bywood West Edina, Minnesota GPS Boring Locations Boring Number Elevation (US Survey Feet) Northing Coordinate Easting Coordinate SB-1 905.7 144973.458 502750.574 Referencing Minnesota County Coordinates Basis – Hennepin County (GEOID09 Conus model) Legend Approximate Soil Boring Location SB-1 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 4 inches Bituminous over 4 inches Aggregate Base. Silty Clayey Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist. (FILL) (SC-SM) Silty Clayey Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose to loose. (Glacial Till) (SM) Silty Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) (SC) Clayey Sand, grey and brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) (SM) Silty Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, reddish brown to brown, moist, medium dense to dense. (Glacial Till) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 1 SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7 SS 8 2-2-2 (4) 3-5-4 (9) 2-3-3 (6) 1-3-3 (6) 5-4-3 (7) 8-8-10 (18) 14-19-17 (36) 16 20.5 NOTES Borehole grouted. GROUND ELEVATION 905.7 ft LOGGED BY GD DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS - 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 7/16/20 COMPLETED 7/16/20 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered with Cave-In Depth of 15 feet HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC DEPTH(ft)0 5 10 15 20 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-1 CLIENT Boyer Building PROJECT NUMBER 20-0593 PROJECT NAME 4904 Bywood West PROJECT LOCATION Edina, MN GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 7/24/20 08:51 - C:\USERS\HGTS 3\DROPBOX (HGTS)\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\20-0593 4904 BYWOOD WEST.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY MITIGATION DIRECTORATE Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe From Flooding in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program FIA-TB-10 (5/01) Technical Bulletin 10-01 Any comments on the Technical Bulletins should be directed to: Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Directorate Program Policy and Assessment Branch 500 C Street, SW. Washington, DC 20472 Wave design on cover based on the Japanese print The Great Wave Off Kanagawa, by Katsuchika Hokussai (1760–1849), Asiatic Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Key Word/Subject Index This index allows the user to locate key words and subjects in this Technical Bulletin. The Technical Bulletin User’s Guide (printed separately) provides references to key words and subjects throughout the Technical Bulletins. For definitions of selected terms, refer to the Glossary at the end of this bulletin. Key Word/Subject Index Page Basement construction, engineered option 19 Basement construction, simplified approach 15 Basement foundation in fill, not recommended 9 Basement foundation in fill, vulnerability to subsurface flooding 1, 9 Basement foundation, in fill placed above BFE 10 Basement foundation, with lowest floor at or above BFE 10 Basement foundation, with lowest opening above BFE 11 Basement foundation, with lowest opening at BFE 12 Community permitting, administrative options for 5 Crawlspace foundation 7 Fill, placed to remove land from the SFHA 1 Fill, areas where prohibited 3 Fill, proper placement of 5 Foundation flood risk, summary table 13 Freeboard, recommendations 6 Insurance coverage for basement flooding, restrictions 9 Professional certification 4 Professional certification, sample form 4 “Reasonably safe from flooding,” defined 2 “Reasonably safe from flooding,” NFIP regulations concerning 2 Slab-on-grade foundation 8 Stem wall foundation 7 Sump pump, requirements for simplified basement construction 15 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 10-01 Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe From Flooding in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program Introduction For the purpose of administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), FEMA identifies and maps flood hazard areas nationwide by conducting flood hazard studies and publishing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These flood hazard areas, referred to as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), are based on a flood having a 1-percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the 100-year flood or Base Flood). Structures within the SFHA in a community participating in the NFIP are subject to floodplain management regulations that impact building standards and are designed to minimize flood risk. For example, Title 44, Part 60, Section 3(c)(2) of the Code of Federal Regulations—abbreviated as 44 CFR 60.3(c)(2)—requires that the lowest floor of a residential structure, including basement, built within the SFHA be at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). In addition, flood insurance must be purchased for these structures if they are used as collateral to secure a loan provided by a federally regulated lender. Flood insurance coverage may be purchased for all eligible structures within a participating community. Insurance rates for structures located within the SFHA differ from the rates for structures located outside the SFHA. When permitted under applicable Federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, earthen fill is sometimes placed in an SFHA to reduce flood risk to the filled area. Under certain conditions, when engineered earthen fill is placed within an SFHA to raise the surface of the ground to or above the BFE, a request may be submitted to FEMA to revise the FIRM to indicate that the filled land is outside of the SFHA. When such revisions are warranted, FEMA usually revises the FIRM by issuing a Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F). After FEMA has revised the FIRM to show that the filled land is outside the SFHA, the community is no longer required to apply the minimum NFIP floodplain management standards to any structures built on the land and the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements no longer apply. It is worth noting that states and local communities may have floodplain regulations that are more restrictive than the minimum requirements of the NFIP and may continue to enforce some or all of their floodplain management requirements in areas outside the SFHA. Although a structure built on a site that has been elevated by the placement of fill may be removed by FEMA from the SFHA, the structure may still be subject to damage during the Base Flood and higher-magnitude floods. Constructing the entire structure at or above the level of the BFE will minimize the flood risk from the Base Flood and is therefore the most prudent approach to constructing on fill. Conversely, a structure with a basement (subgrade area) adjacent to or near the floodplain may well be impacted by subsurface flooding brought on by surface flooding. 1 This bulletin provides guidance on the construction of buildings on land elevated above the BFE through the placement of fill. Several methods of construction are discussed, and the most prudent— those that result in the entire building being above the BFE—are recommended. In some areas of the country, basements are a standard construction feature. Individuals may wish to construct basements on land after it has been removed from the floodplain by a FEMA revision. Buildings with basements built in filled areas are at an added risk of flooding when compared to buildings on other types of foundations. However, there are two major ways to minimize this additional risk from subsurface flooding. First, the building should be located farther back from the edge of the fill closest to the flooding source. Second, the higher the basement floor is elevated, the less the risk. This technical bulletin provides guidance on how to determine that these buildings will be reasonably safe from flooding during the occurrence of the Base Flood and larger floods. To be reasonably safe from flooding during the Base Flood condition, the basement must (1) be dry, not have any water in it, and (2) be structurally sound, not have loads that either exceed the structural capacity of walls or floors or cause unacceptable deflections. In practice, this means that soils around the basement must have low permeability to minimize or stop water infiltration to the basement wall and floors. Any water that does permeate to the basement must be removed by a drainage layer on the outside (soil side) of the basement. In addition, the foundation walls and floor slab must be designed and constructed for any increased loads that may occur during the Base Flood condition. NFIP Regulations Part of a community’s application to participate in the NFIP must include “a commitment to recognize and duly evaluate flood hazards in all official actions in the areas having special flood hazards and to take other such official actions reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the program” [44 CFR 59.22 (a)(8)]. NFIP regulations at 44 CFR 60 include Subpart A: Requirements for Flood Plain Management Regulations. Each community participating in the NFIP adopts a floodplain management ordinance that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements listed in 44 CFR 60. Subpart A establishes specific criteria for determining the adequacy of a community’s floodplain management regulations. The overriding purpose of the floodplain management regulations is to ensure that participating communities take into account flood hazards, to the extent that they are known, in all official actions relating to land management and use. One of the minimum requirements established by the regulations is set forth at 44 CFR 60.3 (a)(3), which states that, for all proposed construction or other development within a participating community, the community must “Review all permit applications to determine whether the proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding.” 44 CFR 59.1 defines “development” as “…any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operation or storage of equipment or materials,” 2 3 Floodways, V Zones, and Alluvial Fan Flood Hazard Areas This bulletin does not apply to the following: • Construction in the floodway. The NFIP prohibits encroachments into the floodway that would cause increases in flood stage. • Construction in SFHAs designated Zone V, VE, or V1-V30 on FIRMs. The NFIP prohib- its the use of structural fill for support of buildings in V zones. Buildings constructed in a V zone must be constructed on an open foundation consisting of piles, piers, or posts and must be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member is at or above the BFE. In addition, this bulletin strongly recommends that structural fill not be used to elevate buildings constructed in A zones in coastal areas. Detailed guidance concerning proper construction methods for buildings in coastal areas is presented in FEMA’s Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55) and in NFIP Technical Bulletin 5, Free-of-Obstruction Requirements. • Construction in SFHAs subject to alluvial fan flooding (designated Zone A0 with depths and velocities shown on FIRMs). The NFIP will not remove land from the floodplain based on the placement of fill in alluvial fan flood hazard areas. More Restrictive State and Local Requirements NFIP Technical Bulletins provide guidance on the minimum requirements of the NFIP regulations. State or local requirements that exceed those of the NFIP take precedence. Design professionals should contact community officials to determine whether more restrictive state or local regulations apply to the building or site in question. All applicable standards of the state or local building code must be met for any building in a flood hazard area. By issuance of this Technical Bulletin, FEMA is noting that residual flood hazards may exist in areas elevated above the BFE by the placement of engineered earthen fill. Residual risks in these areas include subsurface flood conditions and flooding from events that exceed the base flood. This bulletin is intended to guide local floodplain management officials in determining whether structures placed in filled areas are reasonably safe from flooding. FEMA will require that the jurisdiction having authority for floodplain management determine that an area is reasonably safe from flooding before removing it from the SFHA. Warning Construction of a residential building in an identified SFHA with a lowest floor below the BFE is a violation of the floodplain management requirements set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(c)(2), unless the community has obtained an exception to NFIP requirements from FEMA and has approved procedures in place. Notes for Local Officials Professional Certification As required by state and local floodplain management ordinances, a proposed development must be determined to be reasonably safe from flooding. The official having the authority to make this determination should require all appropriate information for making the determination. This may include a certification by a qualified design professional that indicates the land or structures to be removed from the SFHA are reasonably safe from flooding, according to the criteria described in this technical bulletin. Such a professional certification may come from a professional engineer, professional geologist, professional soil scientist, or other design professional qualified to make such evaluations. A sample of such a certification is shown in Figure 1. 4 Figure 1 Sample of professional certification form. Address and Phone Professional Seal Project Name and Address Type of License Title Signature Date License Number I, certify that the design for the aforementioned development is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the guidance provided within FEMA’s Technical Bulletin 10-01 related to ensuring that structures are reasonably safe from flooding and in accordance with accepted professional practices. License Expiration Date Administrative Options for Community Permitting Communities may choose a variety of administrative procedures to assist them in gathering information that can be used to determine whether a proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding. Communities are encouraged to establish procedures that alert them to potential future development of a filled area. These procedures should allow for the evaluation of future development and a means to determine whether it will be reasonably safe from flooding. The following are examples of such procedures: • Require building sites to be identified on final subdivision plats and evaluate those building sites against the standards described in this Technical Bulletin. • Require grading plans as a condition of issuing fill permits and require that those grading plans include building sites, and evaluate those building sites based on this Technical Bulletin. • Require buffer zones or setback zones around the perimeter of fill pads or at the edge of the flood- plain and establish construction requirements within these buffer zones to ensure that buildings are safe from residual risk. • Require as a condition of final subdivision plat approval that the developer agree that no basements will be built in any flood areas. • Adopt or have regulations that control development of areas immediately adjacent to floodplains that would ensure that any construction is reasonably safe from flooding. For example, under the Minnesota State Building Code, communities designate areas outside of the floodplain as “Second- ary Flood Hazard Areas” where building officials evaluate plans for basements and can require modifications to the basement if an official believes there is a residual risk. • When issuing a permit for the placement of fill only in the SFHA, stipulate that no buildings will be built on the site without a subsequent building permit. Placement of Fill Properly placing fill requires an understanding of soil mechanics, local site conditions, the specific characteristics of the soils being placed, the methods used to place and compact the fill, and soil testing procedures. Standard engineering and soil mechanics texts cover these subjects in detail. The performance of these filled areas should consider, but is not limited to, the following: • the consolidation of the fill layers and any underlying layers • the effect of this consolidation on either excessive settlement or differential settlement • how the permeability of the soils affects water infiltration on any structures built on the site 5 6 Building on Land Removed From the SFHA by the Placement of Fill The safest methods of constructing a building on filled land removed from the SFHA are those that result in the entire structure being above the BFE. Methods that place the lowest floor of the building at, rather than above, the BFE are at greater flood risk, and methods that result in the lowest floor (including a basement floor) below the BFE have the highest flood risk of all. Placement of the lowest floor of these structures below the BFE, even through they are outside the SFHA, will result in an increased threat from subsurface flooding and magnified damages from flooding that exceeds the BFE. Loss of Storage and Conveyance The placement of fill in the SFHA can result in an increase in the BFE by reducing the ability to convey and store flood waters. This can result in increased flood damage to both upstream and downstream properties. To prevent these possible results, some communities prohibit fill, require compensatory storage for filled areas, and/or identify a more restrictive floodway. Risk of Flood Damage in Areas Adjacent to the SFHA Areas adjacent to the SFHA may have residual risks of flood damage similar to those in areas removed from the SFHA through the placement of fill. Both areas are subject to residual risk from subsurface water related to flooding and from floods greater than the Base Flood. Methods of construction discussed in this bulletin should also be used in these areas. The foundation types for buildings outside the SFHA described in the following sections are listed in order of their increasing risk of flood damage. Freeboard Freeboard is an additional height used as a factor of safety in determining the elevation of a structure, or floodproofing, to compensate for factors that may increase the flood height (ASCE 24-98, Flood Resistant Design and Construction). When fill is used to protect buildings from the Base Flood, the community should consider whether freeboard should be required. This consideration should include whether better information exists or conditions have changed (from when the BFE was originally established) that indicate that the BFE may be higher than originally expected. One example of when the BFE may be higher is when a culvert or bridge is blocked by debris. Flood modeling assumes an open channel or culvert. Even when the BFE is not expected to be higher, freeboard may be appropriate to provide increased protection from flood events less frequent than the Base Flood or to account for future changes that may increase the BFE. Non-Basement Foundations Non-basement foundations consist primarily of stem wall, crawlspace, and slab-on-grade foundations. Stem Wall Foundation A stem wall foundation can be used to raise the lowest floor above the surrounding grade. After the stem walls have been constructed and extended to the desired elevation, the area enclosed by the stem walls is filled with engineered compacted fill and a slab is poured on top (see Figure 2). Through the placement of additional fill, the site may be elevated above the BFE. This approach provides freeboard—an additional amount of elevation that helps protect against subsurface flooding and floods that exceed the Base Flood. Constructing a stem wall foundation and placing this additional fill on the site provide the highest level of flood protection. 7 Crawlspace Foundation Constructing a crawlspace beneath the first floor will raise the lowest floor of the structure above the surrounding grade (see Figure 3). Openings in the foundation walls are recommended. If flooding reaches the building, the openings allow flood waters to enter the area below the lowest floor and equalize the hydrostatic pressure on the foundation walls (see NFIP Technical Bulletin 1, Openings In Foundation Walls). The crawlspace alternative is less preferable than stem wall construction, which does not result in an enclosed area under the first floor and therefore requires no flood openings. Placing additional fill to a level above the BFE provides freeboard that helps protect against subsurface flooding and floods that exceed the Base Flood. Constructing a crawlspace foundation and placing additional fill on the site provide increased flood protection. Figure 2 Structure on a stem wall foundation. The lowest floor is raised above the BFE. The space enclosed by the stem walls is filled with engineered compacted fill. 8 Slab-On-Grade Foundation This method normally provides less flood protection than crawlspace construction because it does not elevate the house above the adjacent grade (see Figure 4). As a result, the lowest floor of the house can be as low as the BFE and would be inundated by any flood greater than the BFE. Placing additional engineered fill beneath the building to a level above the BFE would provide freeboard and therefore increased flood protection. Figure 3 Structure on a crawlspace foundation. The lowest floor is raised above the BFE. Openings in the foundation walls allow water from floods higher than the fill elevation to enter the crawlspace and equalize the pressure on foundation walls. Figure 4 Structure on a slab-on-grade foundation. The lowest floor is typically slightly higher than the surrounding grade. Basement Foundations Although basements are a desired feature in some areas of the United States, NFIP minimum requirements generally do not allow their construction in the SFHA, because of the increased risk of flood damages. The only instances where this is not the case are buildings for which FEMA has granted a special exemption to allow floodproofed basements. However, once land is removed from the SFHA through a map revision, these NFIP minimum requirements no longer apply. As a result, builders and property owners who build on land removed from the SFHA sometimes elect to install basements, which are at a higher risk of flood damage than the foundation types described previously. Constructing a basement on such land is not recommended, because the basement (i.e., lowest) floor and portions of the basement walls may well be subjected to subsurface flooding. The basement may therefore be subject to seepage and lateral hydrostatic and uplift pressure caused by high groundwater levels associated with flooding in surrounding areas. Additionally, when flooding exceeds the BFE, the basement area may be totally inundated with floodwater. When builders and homeowners decide to accept the additional risk associated with basement construction on filled land, they need to ensure that the basement and the rest of the house are reasonably safe from flooding. 9 Flood Insurance Coverage for Basements It is extremely important to note that the NFIP offers only limited coverage for basement flooding. First, in order for a claim to be paid, there must be a general condition of overland flooding where floodwaters come in contact with the structure. Secondly, the NFIP does not provide coverage for finished nonstructural elements such as paneling and linoleum in basement areas. Contents coverage is restricted to a limited number of items listed in the flood insurance policy. Contact a local insurance agent for more information. Warning In filled areas adjacent to floodplains, floods can still greatly influence the groundwater at the filled site. High groundwater at a site with a basement can result in water infiltrating the basement or greatly increased hydrostatic pressures on the walls and basement slab that can cause failure or permanent deformation. Even when floods have not reached houses with basements, FEMA has seen numerous examples of flooded basements, bowed basement floors, and collapsed basement walls that have resulted from the effects of high groundwater caused by flooding. In addition, the collapse of flooded basements has also occurred when water is rapidly pumped from basements surrounded by saturated soils whose pressure exceeds the capacity of the basement walls. 10 Four basement construction methods are described below in increasing order of flood risk. Basement Foundation With Lowest Floor At or Above BFE Placing the lowest floor of the basement at or above the BFE has the effect of eliminating flood- induced damage up to the BFE (see Figure 5). In general, the higher the basement floor is above the BFE the lower the risk of damage from seepage and hydrostatic pressure caused by flood-related groundwater. Where possible, the basement should be built with its floor at or above the BFE. An added benefit is that floods that exceed the BFE will cause significantly less damage to a structure with this type of basement than to structures with basements whose floors are at greater depths. Basement Foundation in Fill Placed Above BFE Placing fill to a level higher than the BFE has the effect of reducing the depth of the basement floor below the BFE (see Figure 6). It is recommended that fill be placed to a level at least 1 foot above the BFE. In general, the higher the basement floor the lower the risk of damage from seepage and hydrostatic pressure caused by flood-related groundwater. Where possible, enough fill should be properly placed so that the lowest grade adjacent to the structure is raised to an elevation greater than the BFE. An added benefit of fill placed above the BFE is that it helps protect the building from floods greater than the Base Flood. These floods are less likely to reach the structure. Figure 5 Basement foundation with lowest floor above the BFE. Damage from floods below the BFE is eliminated. Basement Foundation With Lowest Opening Above BFE In the event that the lowest floor is not elevated to or above the BFE and fill is not placed to a level above the BFE, the next best method of reducing flood risk is to place the lowest opening into the basement (e.g., window well) at a level higher than the BFE (see Figure 7). This will reduce the chances that surface flooding will enter and inundate the basement. However, the basement walls and floor slab will still be subjected to hydrostatic pressure with the potential for damage and seepage into the basement. In addition, the above-grade basement walls will be exposed to water from floods greater than the Base Flood. For this reason, the lowest opening in the basement walls should be above the BFE, as shown in Figure 7. 11 Figure 6 Basement foundation in fill placed above the BFE. The depth of the basement floor below the BFE is less than when no fill is placed. Figure 7 Basement foundation with lowest opening above the BFE. Surface flooding is less likely to enter and inundate the basement. Basement Foundation With Lowest Opening at BFE This is the least preferable condition of all because it results in the highest flood risk and is not recommended (see Figure 8). The lack of fill above the BFE, coupled with the lowest floor being below BFE and lowest opening at the BFE, exposes the basement to flooding from both subsurface flooding and any flood greater than the Base Flood. 12 Figure 8 Basement foundation with lowest opening at the BFE. The basement is exposed to flooding from any flood greater than the Base Flood. 13 Flood Risk by Foundation Type Table 1 summarizes the foundation construction methods described in this bulletin and ranks them in order of increasing flood risk—the safest foundation types appear near the top; the less safe foundation types appear near the bottom. The foundation construction methods that result in a building that is reasonably safe from flooding are shown in the dark gray area of the table. If the basement construction methods shown in the light gray area are used, the requirements described in the following sections of this bulletin must be met in order for the building to be considered reasonably safe from flooding. Table 1 Flood Risk by Foundation Construction Method 14 Basement Construction Guidance For those who have chosen to accept the additional risk associated with basement construction below the Base Flood on filled land that has been removed from the SFHA, this bulletin provides technical guidance about measures that can be taken to protect basements and meet the requirement that buildings be made reasonably safe from flooding. A simplified approach, including the requirements that must be met for its use, is presented first. For buildings that do not meet the criteria for the simplified approach, this bulletin provides technical guidance for the development of an engineering design tailored to the site conditions. Structural Design Design of foundation elements is addressed in model building codes. This technical bulletin does not address the structural design of basement walls or foundations. Floors and slabs should be designed for the hydrostatic pressures that can occur from the Base Flood. For the structural design, it is recommended that the full hydrostatic pressures be assumed unrelieved by the drainage system. Foundation walls that have not been designed for hydrostatic pressures, such as unreinforced masonry or pressure-treated wood wall systems, should not be used (see Figure 9). Figure 9 Failure of this unreinforced masonry basement during flooding in East Grand Forks, MN, in 1997 caused approximately $32,000 in damage. Simplified Approach Design Requirements If, for a building and building site, all the requirements listed below are met (see Figure 10), the building is reasonably safe from flooding. If all of these requirements are not met, the more detailed analysis described under Engineered Basement Option, on page 19 of this bulletin, should be performed to determine whether the building is reasonably safe from flooding. The ground surface around the building and within a defined setback distance from the edge of the SFHA (see next item) must be at or above the BFE. The setback is the distance from the edge of the SFHA to the nearest wall of the basement. The minimum allowable setback distance is 20 feet. The ground around the building must be compacted fill; the fill material—or soil of similar classification and degree of permeability—must extend to at least 5 feet below the bottom of the basement floor slab. The fill material must be compacted to at least 95 percent of Standard Laboratory Maximum Dry Density (Standard Proctor), according to ASTM Standard D-698. Fill soils must be fine-grained soils of low permeability, such as those classified as CH, CL, SC, or ML according to ASTM Standard D-2487, Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes. See Table 1804.2 in the 2000 International Building Code (IBC) for descriptions of these soil types. The fill material must be homogeneous and isotropic; that is, the soil must be all of one material, and the engineering properties must be the same in all directions. The elevation of the basement floor should be no more than 5 feet below the BFE. There must be a granular drainage layer beneath the floor slab, and a ¼-horsepower sump pump with a backup power supply must be provided to remove the seepage flow. The pump must be rated at four times the estimated seepage rate and must discharge above the BFE and away from the building. This arrangement is essential to prevent flooding of the basement or uplift of the floor under the effect of the seepage pressure. The drainage system must be equipped with a positive means of preventing backflow. Model building codes (such as the 2000 International Residential Code) also address foundation drainage (IRC Section R405) and foundation walls (IRC Section R404). Model building codes generally allow foundation drains to discharge through either mechanical means or gravity drains. In addition, there is often an exception to the requirement for drainage systems in well-drained soils. However, in or near floodplains, well-drained soils can, in fact, help convey groundwater towards the building foundation. Therefore, this exception should not apply in or near floodplains. 15 ? ? ? ? ? ? In some cases in or near floodplains, even with standard drainage systems, hydrostatic pressures from groundwater against the basement can result. When a standard drainage system is unable to eliminate hydrostatic pressure on the foundation, model building codes, including the 2000 International Residential Code (IRC Section R404.1.3), require that the foundation be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The simplified approach contained in this Technical Bulletin assumes no hydrostatic pressure on the foundation and should be used only when a standard drainage system, discharged by a sump pump that is equipped with backup power and that discharges above BFE, is employed. For other drainage systems, the designer should use the engineered basement option presented on page 19 of this bulletin and other appropriate building code requirements. 16 Figure 10 Requirements for use of the simplified approach to basement construction. ? 17 Technical Background for the Simplified Approach The simplified approach is based on the following conditions: 1. The area of the footprint of the basement is less than or equal to 1,200 square feet. 2. The soil is saturated; therefore, there is no time lag in the development of the seepage pattern with a change in flood water level. The groundwater table in floodplains is typically very shallow, and fine- grained soils have a substantial potential for maintaining saturation above the water table by capillary rise. 3. The tailwater level is at the elevation of the BFE. For this bulletin, “tailwater” is defined as the groundwater level beyond the structure, on the side away from the flood water surface. This is a reasonably conservative assumption because the flood would raise the groundwater level in the general area. In some cases, the tailwater level can be higher than the flood level because there is higher ground, as a valley wall, that feeds the groundwater into the floodplain soils. 4. The effective elevation of the base of the seepage flow zone can be defined (see Figure 11). This elevation is needed to permit calculation of the quantity of seepage flow. If the base elevation is not known, its depth below the base of the floor slab can be conservatively approximated as one-half of the building width most nearly perpendicular to the shoreline of the flood water. This would approximate the boundary effects of the three-dimensional seepage flow, in that it would represent the flow coming in from all sides and meeting in the center beneath the floor slab. This approach assumes a constant soil type and density over the flow zone. If the site has stratified soil layers, the engineered basement option should be used (see page 19 of this bulletin). 5. The quantity of seepage flow can be calculated by a simplified method based on Dupuit’s assumption that equipotential lines are vertical. (The Dupuit method uses Darcy’s law with specific physical characteristics. A more detailed description can be found in the first two references listed under “Further Information,” on page 23 of this bulletin.) The elements of the method are presented in Figure 11. The entry surface, with hydraulic head “a,” is a vertical line extending downward from the edge of the flood surface. The exit surface, with hydraulic head “b,” is a vertical line extending downward from the side of the structure closest to the flood water’s edge. The length of the flow path, “L,” is the setback distance. Flow is assumed to be horizontal, and the horizontal coefficient of permeability is the effective permeability. For simplicity, the small inclined entry zone at the river bank and the exit zone below the basement floor are ignored. This is a reasonably conservative measure. The phreatic line, or the line below which the seepage flow occurs under positive pressure, extends from the edge of the flood water to the elevation of the bottom of the basement floor slab. If the exit zone below the basement floor were included, the hydraulic head at “b” would be higher. As shown in Figure 11, the phreatic line is not a straight line, but within the limits of the assumed boundary values, it is close to a straight line. ? ? ? ? The Dupuit equation for the quantity of seepage flow is: q = k(a2 – b2)/2L where:q is the flow in cubic feet per second for a 1-foot width of seepage zone k is the soil permeability in feet per second (fps) (maximum value of k is 1x10-3 fps) a and b are hydraulic heads in feet (a < b + 5) L is the length of the flow zone in feet (L > 20 feet) Figure 11 Method for calculation of seepage flow. 18 19 To obtain Q, the total seepage flow, in cubic feet per second, q must be multiplied by the length around the periphery of the four sides of the structure. This is a simplifying approach that obviates the need for a three-dimensional flow net calculation and is reasonably conservative. It should be noted that the soil permeability does not affect the geometry of the seepage zone or the geometry of the phreatic line. The permeability does have a significant effect on the quantity of seepage that must be collected and discharged by the drainage layer and the sump pump. The calculation of the quantity Q provides a basis for the selection of a sump pump of adequate capacity. To allow for possible errors in the estimation of the soil permeability, the pump should have a capacity of at least four times the calculated value of Q. As noted in the requirements section, a standard sump pump of ¼ horsepower or greater will generally satisfy the requirements of seepage removal for the conditions described above. Engineered Basement Option If the requirements specified for the simplified approach are not met, a licensed soils engineer or geologist should perform a detailed engineering analysis to determine whether the structure will be reasonably safe from flooding. The analysis should consider, but is not limited to, the issues described in the following sections. Depth, Soil Type, and Stratification of Subsurface Soils The depth, soil type, and stratification of the subsurface soils may be complex. Four potential generalized scenarios are shown in Figures 12 and 13. Figure 12 shows two cases of homogeneous soil. The depth of penetration of the basement and the depth of the flow zone are not limited to the assumptions on which the simplified approach is based. Case I represents a foundation consisting of clayey soils, either fill or natural deposits or a combination, which are more or less homogeneous because they have similar engineering properties. If an adequate setback distance is provided, the seepage quantity would be relatively low, and uplift pressure beneath the slab could be controlled by an appropriately sized sump pump because of low permeability. Case II represents a foundation consisting of sandy soils, either fill or natural soil deposits or a combination, which are more or less homogeneous because they have similar engineering properties. The seepage quantity would be fairly large, and more attention would have to be given to the setback distance and to the provision of an adequately sized sump pump to prevent excessive uplift pressure beneath the floor slab because of high permeability. Figure 13 shows two simple cases of stratified soils, with impervious clays overlying pervious sands. This is a common occurrence in natural floodplain deposits. In Case III, the contact between the two soil strata is at some distance below the basement floor. This case would involve a moderate quantity of seepage, depending on the thickness, d, of the impervious stratum below the basement floor. There is also a potential for excessive uplift pressure beneath the floor, at the level of the bottom of the clay stratum. If d is equal to h, the net hydraulic head between the flood level and the floor level, the safety factor against uplift would be approximately 1.0. If d is less than h, there would be excessive uplift, with a safety factor equal to less than 1.0. 20 Figure 12 Case I and Case II – homogeneous soil. Case IV shows impervious soils overlying pervious soils, with the contact between the soil strata at some distance above the basement floor. This case would involve a large quantity of seepage and potential for excessive uplift beneath the basement floor. Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical investigations must be made for cases that do not conform with the assumptions on which the simplified approach is based. Information that is needed to permit an adequate engineering analysis includes the following: • The BFE, which is to be used as the design flood water surface for calculating expected seepage. • The elevation of the bottom of the basement floor. This can be adjusted as needed to achieve more suitable conditions. • The setback distance of the basement wall from the edge of the flood water. This can be adjusted to achieve more suitable seepage control or to accommodate available space restraints. • The elevation of the groundwater table and its seasonal variations. A high water table would cause problems with groundwater control during construction of a basement, even without a flood event. • The stratification of the subsurface materials, for both natural and fill soils. In general, borings should be drilled to a depth below the bottom of the floor slab that is at least two times as great as the depth of the bottom of the floor slab below the BFE. Figure 13 Case III and Case IV – stratified soils. 21 • The engineering classification of the soils, for both natural and fill soils. This must be done in accordance with ASTM D2487, Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes. This is the Unified Soil Classification System that is universally used throughout the United States. Local or county agricultural soil survey maps should not be used, because they do not give specific information about location and depth of soils, and their designations are not pertinent to civil engineering use. • Subsurface conditions landward from the structure. This includes information about the location of the water table, whether it is higher or lower than the flood level, and information about any penetrations of the soil, such as ponds. Attention should be given to the possibility that higher ground, such as valley walls, could contribute to the groundwater level in the floodplain, either perennially or during periods of heavy rain. • Information about any penetrations through the basement walls below the BFE, such as utility lines and other openings. • Analysis of seepage quantity. The analysis can be made by the conservative simplified method described in Item 5 in the section titled Technical Background for the Simplified Approach (illustrated in Figure 11), or by the construction of a flow net that takes into account all of the boundary conditions more rigorously. A flow net may be required to permit analysis of uplift pressures. Uplift pressures may be more significant in laminated or stratified soil deposits. Buildings in Existing Filled Areas In evaluating buildings in existing filled areas, the two approaches already described—the simplified approach or the engineered basement option—can be used. If the simplified approach is used, all the requirements for the use of this approach must be met. Some possible means for evaluating whether these requirements are met include soil tests and investigations, including soil borings and hand augers; field records from the time the fill was placed; and soil surveys. If the requirements for the simplified approach are not met, a licensed soils engineer or geologist should perform a more detailed engineering analysis as described under Engineered Basement Option on page 19. More extensive soil investigations and testing may be required to complete the analysis. The NFIP The NFIP was created by Congress in 1968 to provide federally backed flood insurance coverage, because flood coverage was generally unavailable from private insurance companies. The NFIP is also intended to reduce future flood losses by identifying floodprone areas and ensuring that new development in these areas is adequately protected from flood damage. The NFIP is based on an agreement between the Federal government and participating communities that have been identified as floodprone. FEMA, through the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA), makes flood insurance available to the residents of a participating community, provided the community adopts and enforces adequate floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum NFIP requirements. The NFIP encourages communities to adopt floodplain management ordinances that exceed the minimum NFIP criteria set forth in Part 60 of the NFIP Floodplain Management Regulations (44 CFR 60). Included in the NFIP requirements, found under Title 44 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, are minimum building design and construction standards for buildings located in SFHAs. Through their floodplain management 22 ordinances or laws, communities adopt the NFIP performance standards for new, substantially improved, and substantially damaged buildings in floodprone areas identified on FEMA’s FIRMs. Technical Bulletins This publication is one of a series of Technical Bulletins that FEMA has produced to provide guidance concerning the building performance standards of the NFIP. These standards are contained in 44 CFR 60.3. The bulletins are intended for use primarily by state and local officials responsible for interpreting and enforcing NFIP regulations and by members of the development community, such as design professionals and builders. New bulletins, as well as updates of existing bulletins, are issued periodically, as necessary. The bulletins do not create regulations; rather they provide specific guidance for conforming with the minimum requirements of existing NFIP regulations. Users of the Technical Bulletins who need additional guidance concerning NFIP regulatory requirements should contact the Mitigation Division of the appropriate FEMA regional office or the local floodplain administrator. NFIP Technical Bulletin 0, the User’s Guide to Technical Bulletins, lists the bulletins issued to date, provides a key word/subject index for the entire series, and lists addresses and telephone numbers for FEMA’s 10 Regional Offices. Ordering Information Copies of FEMA Technical Bulletins can be obtained from the FEMA Regional Office that serves your area. In addition, Technical Bulletins and other FEMA publications can be ordered from the FEMA Publications Distribution Facility at 1-800-480-2520. The Technical Bulletins are also available at the FEMA web site at www.fema.gov. Further Information The following publications contain information related to the guidance presented in this bulletin: American Society of Civil Engineers. 1998. SEI/ASCE 24-98, Flood Resistant Design and Construction. Cedergren, H. R. 1977. Seepage, Drainage and Flow Nets. Wiley. New York. Harr, M. E. 1977. Mechanics of Particulate Media. McGraw Hill. New York. International Code Council. 2000. International Building Code. Birmingham, AL. International Code Council. 2000. International Residential Code. Birmingham, AL. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 1986. EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 1978. EM 1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees. Washington, DC. 23 Glossary Base Flood – The flood that has a 1-percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the 100-year flood). Basement – Any area of a building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. Community – Any state or area or political subdivision thereof, or any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or authorized native organization, which has the authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations for the areas within its jurisdiction. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – The independent Federal agency that, in addition to carrying out other activities, administers the NFIP. Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) – The component of FEMA directly responsible for administering the flood insurance aspects of the NFIP. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) – The insurance and floodplain management map issued by FEMA that identifies, on the basis of detailed or approximate analysis, areas of 100-year flood hazard in a community. Floodprone area – Any land area susceptible to being inundated by flood water from any source. Mitigation Directorate – The component of FEMA directly responsible for administering the flood hazard identification and floodplain management aspects of the NFIP. New construction/structure – For floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which the start of construction commences on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes subsequent improvements to the structure. For flood insurance purposes, these structures are often referred to as “post-FIRM” structures. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) – Area subject to inundation by the base flood, designated Zone A, A1-30, AE, AH, AO, V, V1-V30, or VE. 24 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Nrb OCT 0 5 2 020 CITY OF LbiNA • lend 04•0 77 5, Ir r Si 1S , r IJ VOW I 4, f , r - - -• • • - • r L r - r rfo / T,- - -1 dal 61), tnrtI UNEXCAVAIED 5- CONCRETE SIMI ON RIGID INSULADON 11 POOL BY OTHERS 1r II 1 REII—TX7INING I WALL r_ L., 4 . I i_ .•___I_____L UNEXCAVATED 5' CONCRETE SLAB 07 4 •1 , - -L. I ON MO INSULATION 1._ J- -1 T - - i / / L(12) L _ _ SII , L a- tt I 'P. , i ...-,- , Ni-F , -I 4,-- UNDICAVAIEO I_ I" 1 1 I 1 -I -, 5- CONCRETE SIAB ON RIGID INSULAIION - - - J L. _ 1 1-1110. 1/ IR --> i. 10 17 01 1 0/ .Z. I 3 / n3 t.7 its 11.Y nt 71 1 Arm - - r. L t i - A ss rx - -1 l =--1 1 , .I.__ xS '''.: I`--`i^~TN—' I I t —,.. L..... L.._ 0 1;11 -1 S. L__1 f p L x -t a. UNEXCAVATED ST CONCRETE STAB ON RIGID INSUIAITON E ' UNEXCAVATED SI CONCRETE STAB 134N EN n•r 3410. -I- r ON RICA, INSIAATION x US r J - - - 1 1 a 1 1 I 131 1 3 r rill TAO AR • 1 • W. a 4. 1 ® 1 Asi 1 i i 1 / —iTicit."'"2 _ _ ...?„ -, r'ig'C'''' STORM HED& an-a---- ,,„,„,„„,.„,„, \ MT 21-11on % / , .• - 111., - '11ft' 010490%0 Iva? k/ Ii 1 e-- _1 , r 1 I I . Z 1 on•0•111.3043 41et 1- 1 4 -1 •8 LT IL 1_ La ,etallorisu,' PILMICIAI. _t- PLANTER ABOVE , —if RANTER ABOVE ,,,,,,,.... ri 69 UNEXCAVATED ''. i I I r d 1. _ ...1 i L - i A Alk KY t.00.0%113=. J r4 0 m111•110.1 4-4,r -I- L T u!IO IT-L _ __ _ _ _ .___ ___ _-•_EE-___ t L 14911 141 1-140 ..1, Eh NW 17 1 013 of i1f NT 10,4111. FOUNDATION PLAN na01,031•321. sul4010,000.•04•••••3 ''''''••••310160101•01 143 9 4 .-xx • ry N•su 400 1:10,4100.1 /-110•34340/ V CO. LK "GOMM 000 441. CS— ENGELSMA RESIDENCE .11.1.5310 A1.0 FOUNDATION PUN Gf tf st IST Yf WOW-01R. ..110141 CC TR ITT TT IT TIC/ K 41V Sr S is 111,C11A, WW1, ,SCINV 14 rsT ISv SI I 1 1, 1 I , -----\ sjevAGE '1i--" I' \ i n - ..- t 1, t, I I I , I , 1 a a _I_ I II l it i 1-- ___ OLITEGAI BAR- I I I ! I 1 1 IF I II I ..2. I I d L.!- ''''' "Ln"- .Ili —J n I ...,.,•Th. • . I NT 41.2 I I r OMB WAG( p III CAN. b I 11 .f-,-.,:a -= 5 wxc lit t: Ie I 1-1 Eil- 1 1- 1 umh_, m,se .-----)/ L, 4-11:TLIC I 1 11 I ,ere 1 1 ,Iy. 1.1. W1,01. EAU _ _ I. --• - 01V STICSQ. — - .----F - I Is• ‘4 W. 8 •s ...-- •cs.c - - . .... -) ,.... • • wor t / T\, mom ,-.-.--1--.---. , -1 1 1- II L: L- -- --_ _ ' 21"."' r -1 -I- - — \ J I , s 1 ‘; •A i i'i it I II LEI 1 t: 0 III = g. ,' - rmt ri Row vt.inG 1 __, : , 1 .:, B --ALT E - F---'1' - A I -1-- --i- g ..(--'• — ...,0,..‘. -€. —1 --r- .7-sfAl FACOLO- _ . . _ WIER E GROOM. I - • i *-'' 1 I - -A- -kT,) ! 0 C N AA I Ls. . _W_ 1 _ = I i I 1 - _ _ _i___ - , --'. a_ —, CARAI'E ENE< 11 1 + •P . , ,AILALO. I I I L lli \\ V - - , M AIO__REST _ _1 .1. ,_ , k• __. 1 __T, i N --WWI. I 4 2/114: i 2 t _ „.__,,,_ ____ , . HALL s i 1 , - - HA. - - - - — wove* "e - ., I 151.- EYS.- - — 1: 11 MEE= --HALL Tr I T1 , .ii-- --C'- -- 1 Mr 1 1_ , 41 - ., ,,,,.. —,_ -T- --•• ----, Ql_91: Arm .- -.- jr-__,....ss- -,-, mum i .1 .,-- GiE TRY '''. 1 , i _ vi, - . --0; A 11.-- e Alk I \ / 'RI .0 ROW .:44tro.A. limiril __,,,f, 427 IA. RR. il Aill 1 ;'1Am;. 1 1' , 111111 EgAg •.,,, ,,:-.4 . 9, IN r r s t - __...LL, TA kg Sall1P1 ALIvcia 1 - CrillE=W . , ; -I- INLIAAJFILAIIM ( e . 1 „,,, = = ' \ / \I ' ._-z--•_== --ta, MASIER 6 El 1 , i k ,L. Kt CATETI 4. MIMI , id Aai' til i IRL , 11101 1 .... 111011ffiall. ... 11:'41-'1 .. a 0 -.4.# 1 STORAGE ' ff s 0 EN RITC RAT MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN //IT. etraPrirc uT/7 .0 A1411 1013aCCOVaNaceSCI pLAt C ENGELSMA RESIDENCE CO CO ro) 0 o w o „, o g NING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 ITY OF EDINA r • lairreWiNeg .f:1• 1.1C 44. MCMI.Cilia01-Atat ....sm., map misicomproll Len morn, Ina ant Awn,. Nem Inti we....ror,cst=c/unaAnclOoLphcern ENGELSMA RESIDENCE 4904 Bywood West Edina, Minnesota 55436 411. Zr eevr C 70 rIl rn -n 0 0 -o r- 0\". NI3IALLEIVd3C1 eNINNVid CO' rAr r - - ,71 .„‘ in Fa? L1 z it --, L. P041VDMIR 011110.(11.194. LECOPAC.1 LLROAO MAX BEADING HEIGHT: 945.40 I F I f EIFS DETAIL OW HEAD FROPOS D MAIN LEVEL BEEN 907.8 TOP OF GARAGE HAS RP/. 907.65 PROP MAIN LEVEL EXISTING REV: MAIN 909.1 1 ye. sat_ .7 906.8 CURRENT AVERAGE - EXISTING GRADE REV: MAO 4''19.000 PLAIN FLEW 9084 TOP OF BASEMENT SUB REV: MOD FRONT ELEVATION DORMER WNW 4> HEAD HT CHLING TOP 1 47 BONUS R SUBROOR GARAGE TOP PLATE 4P BONUS :] ROOM FLOOR 1. G RAGE DR H -0 HT WOW HEAD IR _ Tir H I 1 II 1 I 111 J 11 rl emsmpaeno 1 MIEN {PAW] __BI•1__139.1___ - 0__1 L 9PEWPC00 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EL INA PO•R COGY.1,41.11..t tp-,414.11, T.CCO MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: + 945.40 TrITITITt COLLECA,V10-(1,-.1. ••• Im Elm N n o 11 mi.. air PROPOSED WIN LEVEL HEV: 0,6 4909 MAIN BEEN: 906.8 -4GUWRINT AVERA EXLSPNG GRAD REV: 905.40 I L 1 PR"I'm T81.* GARAGE SAB . ___L __i I HEV: 906.3 , 4, I ROOD RAIN REV: 9014 <7, ENGELSMA RESIDENCE JOBNIMSEle IO/S/2020 Voiarce Sot TTT ▪ T-TL REAR ELEVATION ,cpp cD./ A(< A2.0 FROST AND REAR ELEVATIONS MAX BUILDNG HEIGHT. 41- 945.43 O PROPOSED . MAIN LEVEL DUSTING DIV; MAIN 909.15 LEVEL REV: 906.8 CURRENT AVERAGE MING GRADE ELEV: 90540 PROPOSED TOP OF GARAGE SAAR la 907.65 LEFT ELEVATION 9.4.E1/M11,0 FLOOD PLAIN ELEV: 903.4 TOP OF BASEMENT SLAB BEV: 900.03 DORMER WOW HEADITI BONUS ROOM +1SUBFIOOR -?` GARAGE TOP PLATE •R BONUS ROOM FLOOR RIGHT ELEVATION SCAM 14..7.7 ENGELSMA RESIDENCE 9119E 1astxtto VOM,Ce SW PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA RGHT AND LEFT BEVAllONS azu 10.ISX/20 Var,ce Set U POWDER I MEN BEDROOM 3 GARAGE I e BUILDING SECTION l rt PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA BUILDING SECTION STORM SHELTER oeur LillN ,21-Yea.,-,01,14a I- 1 BUDDING SECITOItS MASTER CLOSET CU SET I MASTER BEDROOM OUTDOOR TERRACE ENGELSMA RESIDENCE 0 oo C w w 1,e?79-1 11- - vitt, eot, viels-r; orr. lz-ett>r Vir--tee err. Wavy, FoeF 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA Solution water matters® Solution Blue, Inc. Phone: 651-294-0038 444 Cedar Street info@solutionblue.com Suite 1005 www.solutionblue.com PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 Date: August 18, 2020 (Revised October 5, 2020) Subject: Stormwater Management Memo CITY OF EDINA 4904 Bywood West, Edina, MN Drainage Design Calculations On behalf of Boyer Builders, Solution Blue has prepared drainage design calculations to be included in the project documents. Below is the Stormwater Management Memo detailing the drainage design calculations and BMPs included in this project, as well as pertinent attachments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is located at 4904 Bywood West in Edina, Minnesota ("Site"). The proposed disturbance area for this project is under i.o acres, therefore the City of Edina ("City") has only required that this Site follow rate and volume control restrictions. The purpose of this memo is to address these regulations. This project includes demolishing and building a new residence, realigning the driveway, constructing a storage garage and a sport court, grading stormwater BMPs in the back yard and grading to tie into existing elevations that will disturb less than one acre of total area. The proposed design intends to use oversized storage pipes and a bermed storage area in the back yard to infiltrate stormwater and help with volume and rate control as it leaves the Site. We analyzed the existing and preliminary proposed Site hydrology using HydroCAD. To estimate existing and proposed runoff rates we performed hydrology modeling for the existing and proposed Site. We divided the Site into drainage boundaries, input land use, soils information, surface storage, and precipitation depths corresponding to the required design storms. This project site contains Silty Sand type soils, which are commonly Type B soils and good for infiltrating storm runoff. A Soils Map showing the entire Site can be found in Attachment C. The proposed stormwater management design will route the site runoff from the back of the house and pool area to two yard drain inlets that route the stormwater to underground storage pipes. The storage pipes will infiltrate the runoff and discharge the excess into a depression in the lawn area before ultimately discharging into the City storm pond once it reaches the berm outlet. The proposed grading intends to balance the backyard by lowering the grade for the garage and sport court, and filling in the existing low spot and creating a berm along the property line to retain this Site's runoff before reaching the proposed equalizer pipe in the berm. Since this project is altering the storage area of the ioo-yr floodplain, we intend to provide an equal amount of storage behind the proposed berm and within the proposed storage pipes so that no flood storage volume is lost. The existing City pond has issues with flooding neighboring properties during storm events, our proposed berm will prevent the runoff from smaller storms from leaving the Site and inundating the neighboring properties with excess stormwater in the City pond. The proposed grading also creates a new lower overland emergency overflow across the sport court draining to the western property line at the back-to-back loo-7r design storm peak elevation for the City pond (9o5.o). The storage pipes also include an additional EOF pipe to the west at revised City provided loo-yr flood elevation of 9o3.7, to also provide additional flood relief from the City pond. This 10-05-2020 4904 BYWOOD WEST DRAINAGE DESIGN: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEMO Solution additional grading lowered the depressed basin area's loo-yr high water elevation from 903.99 in the last submittal to 903.64 within the property limits. The front yard will sheet drain into Bywood West like the existing drainage conditions. Comparing this BMP design to the existing conditions against the and 100-yr design storms shows that the proposed design does not increase runoff rates and volumes. PROPOSED CONDITION CALCULATIONS The proposed BMPs are underground storage pipes and a surface storage area behind a proposed berm upstream of the City drainage pond that is shared with the neighboring properties. These BMPs will improve the overall runoff rate as well as providing some volume reduction. Since the Soils Map show type B soils onsite, we assumed an infiltration rate of 0.45 in/hr, and set the overflow berm and outlet invert in the storage pipes to a height of 1.8o' to ensure that the collected runoff will draw down completely within 48 hours (per general MPCA requirements). The City requires that volume of runoff from 1.1" from the newly created impervious surface be retained in the infiltration BMP. The construction of the new house, sport court, garage and driveway adds approximately 12,623 sf of impervious coverage to the site, requiring 1,157 cf of runoff storage. The designed storage pipes and basin area in the lawn are designed to hold 1,876 cf below the storage pipe system outlet invert, which meets the City's rate and volume control requirements. Refer to the Construction Plan Set in Attachment A for site coverage and volume calculations. Existing drainage patterns around the proposed site will be maintained when tying the grades back into the existing ground elevations, see Construction Plan Set in Attachment A. RATE CONTROL To provide enough volume control and peak flow retention for the io-, and 100-year events, runoff was directed to the proposed BMPs mentioned above. By capturing and filtering stormwater runoff from the project Site, the peak discharge rates and 100-yr discharge volumes do not exceed the existing runoff rates & volumes. Table 1 shows the peak comparisons draining to the project site's discharge point (overflow berm). Overall, the HydroCAD model showed no increase in runoff rates in the Proposed design. Table 1 Peak Runoff Rates Rainfall Event Existing Runoff Rate (cfs)1 Existing Runoff Volume (af)1 Proposed Runoff Rate (cfs)2 Proposed Runoff Volume (af)1 10-yr 24 hour (Atlas 14) 2.86 0.19 2.19 0.14 100-yr 24 hour (Atlas 14) 8.59 0.55 5.43 0.51 1 See Attachment B HydroCAD report: Existing. 'See Attachment B HydroCAD report: Proposed. PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 10-05-2020 4904 BYWOOD WEST DRAINAGE DESIGN: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEMO 2 Solution CONCLUSION The proposed stormwater management plan for the residence at 4904 Bywood West will implement stormwater best management practices that provide enough rate control for the project Site. The proposed stormwater management plan for the Site consists of the following stormwater BMPs: underground storage pipes and a surface storage area created by a proposed berm upstream of the City storm pond. The Site was modeled using HydroCAD for the existing and proposed and loo-year storm events based on Atlas-14 models to confirm that the project meets the stormwater rate control requirements from the City of Edina despite being below the disturbed area threshold. Our findings indicate the Site will successfully achieve the goals for peak runoff rate and volume rate. Please do not hesitate to contact Benjamin Lucas (651-294-5535, blucas®solutionblue.com ) with any questions regarding this submittal or if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Solution Blue, Inc. Benjamin Lucas, P.E. Project Engineer PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 10-05-2020 49 0 4 BYWOOD WEST DRAINAGE DESIGN: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEMO 3 ATTACHMENT A: CONSTRUCTION PLAN SET PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 10-05-2020 4904 BYWOOD WEST DRAINAGE DESIGN: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEMO A ATTACHMENT B: HYDROCAD MODEL RESULTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 10-05-2020 4904 BYWOOD WEST DRAINAGE DESIGN: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEMO EX To West To Bywood West To City Pond PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA Subcat Reach r Routing Diagram for 200703-DRAINAGE Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc., Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703-DRAINAGE Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (selected nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 1.440 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1X, 2X, 3X) 0.186 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1X, 2X, 3X) 0.104 98 Roofs, HSG B (2X, 3X) 0.023 98 Water Surface, HSG B (2X) 1.754 68 TOTAL AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703-DRAINAGE Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (acres) Group Numbers 0.000 HSG A 1.754 HSG B 1X, 2X, 3X 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other t754 TOTAL AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703-DRAINAGE Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Printed 8/17/2020 Page 4 Ground Covers (selected nodes) HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C HSG-D Other Total Ground Subcatchment (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Cover Numbers 0.000 1.440 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.440 >75% Grass cover, Good 1X, 2X, 3X 0.000 0.186 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.186 Paved parking 1X, 2X, 3X 0.000 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.104 Roofs 2X, 3X 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 Water Surface 2X 0.000 1.754 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.754 TOTAL AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 0.65- 0.6 0.55= 0.5= 0.45=- 0.4- o T. 0.3- 0.25= 0.2-_ 0.15-1 0.1- 0.05 e Runoff 11 1 I _1_11 1 oli30=0.Q630 „ 11 -I -1 4 4 1- I- I- 111111 111111 ▪ - -1 - - it 11T TI-1-1- 1 II 1 I 1 I 1 II 1 -4 -1 4 4- 4- 1- 1- 1 -1 4 4 4 l 1- 1- 111111111111111 1111111[1111111 --I-1-1 -1- T-1 „„ -, 1 -1 7 I I I 10-ryr Rainfall=4.29" i3ori,offAreo=.L,22,0o _ -RiOnott-Voldth6=10,048i2lf Runoff Depth=1.14'1 FIO*1-0,101=119'; 1 III 1 J J I I I I III L -1 -1 -4 4 1- 1- 111111 111111 --1--1-+-+ - - - -- 111111 111111 1▪ 11111 111111 I I I I 1 1 I 1 J J 1 L L L 111111 111111 -1 - - 4 A- 4- - - 1- 111111 --1 - 4 - 4 4 4 - - 1- - 1- - - TCF ,„ 17.0 ,,L , ,„„„, " CN#04 .4 I .41 0.62 cfs ILL 111111 111111 111111 111111 1▪ 11111 I I I .1r r I I I J ir 1 L C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703 -DRAINAGE NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.29" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 'IX: To West Runoff 0.62 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.048 af, Depth= 1.14" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.29" Area (sf) CN Description 20,308 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,697 98 Paved parking, HSG B 22,005 64 Weighted Average 20,308 92.29% Pervious Area 1,697 7.71% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 110 0.0630 0.11 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 'IX: To West Hydrog raph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.29" Runoff Area=32,448 sf Runoff Volume=0.086 of !Runoff Depth=1.39" Flow Length=130' Slope=0.0540 Tc=13.5 min VII I CN=68 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z 1.30 cfs - - C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703 -DRAINAGE NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4. 29" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 2X: To City Pond Runoff = 1.30 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Depth= 1.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.29" Area (sf) CN Description 1,984 98 Roofs, HSG B 2,848 98 Paved parking, HSG B 26,613 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,003 98 Water Surface, HSG B 32,448 68 Weighted Average 26,613 82.02% Pervious Area 5,835 17.98% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.5 130 0.0540 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2X: To City Pond Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDNA Runoff 0 LL [19 Runoffi 1.35 cfs NOAA 24;hr A 10-yr r- Runoff Area="245946 sf Runoff Volurne=0.067 af Runoff Depih=1.60" Tc=7.0 min CN=71 0- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703-DRAINAGE NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.29" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 3X: To Bywood West Runoff = 1.35 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.067 af, Depth= 1.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-ON, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.29" Area (sf) CN Description 15,822 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,562 98 Roofs, HSG B 3,562 98 Paved parking, HSG B 21,946 71 Weighted Average 15,822 72.10% Pervious Area 6,124 27.90% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3X: To Bywood West Hydrograph PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 0 LL c) 0 LL L T T T J 1 L 1 L L L r T 4 , T T infloAiv Area; 1.7 7 i t ac C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703 -DRAINAGE NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.29" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Reach EX: [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 1.754 ac, 17.87% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.38" for 10-yr event Inflow = 2.83 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.201 af Outflow = 2.83 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.201 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach EX: Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Inflow 13 Outflow PLANNING DEPARTME4T OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 1.98 cfs C-- T Tri NOAA 244ir A 190 yr Rainfall=7.47" Ruhoff Au-e0=`422;005 Of Runoff Volljnii=,04,14,af Runptfjbei00.0"1 Flow Lengtoi Slope=0.0630 pisi=e4 I I I ~I- 0 LL 0 Runoff C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703-DRAINAGE NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.47" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Subcatchment 1X: To West Runoff 1.98 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 0.142 af, Depth= 3.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.47" Area (sf) CN Description 20,308 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,697 98 Paved parking, HSG B 22,005 64 Weighted Average 20,308 92.29% Pervious Area 1,697 7.71% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 110 0.0630 0.11 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 1X: To West Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARI OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF ECNA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703-DRAINAGE NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.47" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment 2X: To City Pond Runoff = 3.69 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.236 af, Depth= 3.79" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.47" Area (sf) CN Description 1,984 98 Roofs, HSG B 2,848 98 Paved parking, HSG B 26,613 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,003 98 Water Surface, HSG B 32,448 68 Weighted Average 26,613 82.02% Pervious Area 5,835 17.98% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.5 130 0.0540 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2X: To City Pond Hyd rograph -I-11 -I -V- 3.69 cfs -I--F -J- L L J - - - - - - - - 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOAA 24-hr A L L 100-yr Rainfall=7.4'7" Runoff irea=32,44? sf Runoff VolUme=0.236 of n Runoff -11 2- „ Runoff Depth=3.79" low LenOth=13,1y, Slope 0.0540 I.- Tc.=13.5 min - CN=68 OCT 05 2020 CITY OF ENNA 0 , „ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3.49 cfs 3- 2- -r r T T T r r T r r r r 1 1 -r T T r r 1 7 T T NOAA 24-Fir A —190-yr Runoff P‘tre=`21 1i914§ sf Runoff VOlUnie=,0 1;1`73 of r -Run-off1Deilifr=4-.1 2" -1 1 7 T T r r r Td=7.0 min Cil=71 1 U- 0 n Runoff C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703 -DRAINAGE NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.47" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Subcatchment 3X: To Bywood West Runoff 3.49 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.173 af, Depth= 4.12" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.47" Area (sf) CN Description 15,822 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,562 98 Roofs, HSG B 3,562 98 Paved parking, HSG B 21,946 71 Weighted Average 15,822 72.10% Pervious Area 6,124 27.90% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3X: To Bywood West Hydrograph 0- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPAR-fhiL,-., OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF MINA NI Inflow 0 Outflow T r 1 - - - -14 - - - 1 - - 4-1 - - - 1 I -I 4- I- -4 4- - -t 4- 1- I I I I I I I I I I I I i ' I L - - 1 L I nfloliv Arett= I :754 L J L ac 4- R11 _ J _ 1 _ L- - 8.11 cfs -1 L L /.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) 1 - - - r r - - C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - 20200817 4904 Bywood West - EX 200703 -DRAINAGE NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.47" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 8/17/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Reach EX: [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 1.754 ac, 17.87% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.76" for 100-yr event Inflow = 8.11 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.550 af Outflow = 8.11 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.550 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach EX: Hyd rog ra p h PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 0 0 T. To Bywood West To West Link Subcat North B ckyard - ackyarci Storage Pipes South South Backyard Backyard\Berm PLANNING DEPAi:11 Iv Li i OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF ED NA Routing Diagram for 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc., Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC PR Reach C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (selected nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 1.151 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1S, 2S-A, 2S-B, 2S-C, 3S) 0.398 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1S, 2S-A, 2S-B, 2S-C, 3S) 0.182 98 Roofs, HSG B (15, 2S-B, 2S-C, 3S) 0.023 98 Water Surface, HSG B (2S-A, 2S-C) 1.754 74 TOTAL AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5.2020 CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (acres) Group Numbers 0.000 HSG A 1.754 HSG B 1S, 2S-A, 2S-B, 2S-C, 3S 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 1.754 TOTAL AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Ground Covers (selected nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 1.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.151 >75% Grass cover, Good 1S, 2S-A, 2S-B, 2S-C, 3S 0.000 0.398 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.398 Paved parking 1S, 2S-A, 2S-B, 2S-C, 3S 0.000 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.182 Roofs 1S, 2S-B, 2S-C, 3S 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 Water Surface 28-A, 2S-C 0.000 1.754 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.754 TOTAL AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 0.19/ 0.18: - 0.17= 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11i _ 0.1:_ 0.09- 0.08-_ 0.07-_ 0.06- 0.05 0.03: 0.02-h 0.01: 0 - - - - 11- - - + - - 4- - - 1 1- 1 -I -4 1 I- I- I I 1- ,1 1 - 4- 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 + + - + - F -F -1- -1- - i -+- - F - -H - MN-St 17,Ouis 1:3 ark 241.17h. :-2 17yr Rainfall=2.87" Runoff VolUme=0.019 af RuPoff POPth=0.48" J ji Flow Lenigth=t1101- I L 1 1 ,I t, L, 1 1 j L L 1 - 1 1 Ou'n'Off Ar:ea=20;705', s if Slope=0.0630 '/' Tc=17.0 min p-N=r6 - - - - - __ 0.17 cfs - -I - - 4 --4 ----4 -I -I -1 -1 -1 _ - 1- 1- 4- _.L J L J I C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr 51 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: To West Runoff = 0.17 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Depth= 0.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (sf) CN Description 17,750 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,521 98 Paved parking, HSG B 484 98 Roofs, HSG B 20,755 66 Weighted Average 17,750 85.52% Pervious Area 3,005 14.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 110 0.0630 0.11 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 1 S: To West Hydrograph 0 LL 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) III Runoff PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 1 LT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. - 1 0.12cfs 1 L_ L 4- 1- r I 1 _L ic J J -1 - - t - 1- - r -------------- J -1 14 4 -1 4 1 4- I- 1- -1 - 4 - - - I- - - 1 1 H + I- -1 -F t I--1- I I I 1 7 7 T r I- 1 1 T T r r I I I 1 1 I 1 L L L_ 1 _1 1 t L L J 1_ 1, L L - MN-St LOuis Park 241-hr S1 2,-yr _1_111LL 1_1111 L ; ; ;Raitifall=2.877 -1: Runoff Area=j3;302 sf Runroffyakirrie #04)13 af - Runoff Depth=0.27 T~!17.6 mirk Flow Length 110;` 1 1 111111 111111 - - 4 - 4 - - - - - 111111 111111 -I 1 t 1 1- 1- 1- 111111 I I I 7 1 7 T r r I I I I Clq 1=t-7 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr 51 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-A: To City Pond Runoff = 0.12 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 0.013 af, Depth= 0.52" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (sf) CN Description 11,067 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 206 98 Water Surface, HSG B 2,079 98 Paved parking, HSG B 13,352 67 Weighted Average 11,067 82.89% Pervious Area 2,285 17.11% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.6 110 0.0200 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-A: To City Pond Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY Ur' EDINA • Runoff 11111 - - - 4 , - -4- - 11 11111 11111 I 4- - - - 4 , - - - F-1-- I I 1111111 MN-St Louis Park 24 hr 812 1-yr 1 Slope=0.0538 '/' 1 III 1111 • 111 11111 1 11-r L 0.14 0.13- 0.12- 0.11- 0.1- 0.09- 0.08- 0.07: 0.06: 0.05: 0.04: 0.01- 0 n Runoff 1 1 1 11 111111 III I I I II , 11 -I-1.1A. 11111-1- -11 T T I ,,,, , i-, , , , . , I . , I 111111 111111 - 111111 111111 -11 T T r r 11111 - - -1 t t - 111111 Rainfali=2.877 T, R-unOff Airea47;529 sf RUnoff Volunie*OLOI 3 af + 4, . 1 4 4-1- 1- I Rui)off Popth=Q•887 I I 'Flow Lenigt441301 frrr I-- I 1 11 - I I 11 I I r --11--1 - 1 11 1 - - 11 11 1 1 Tc=20.7j mirk 1111 11 -1-1 4 1. 11 -1. - 11 t - Tr i I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I ▪ I I I I I I I 1 I I TT r r I I I I I I I I -I -1+ 1 I I 11 11 CN=176 11 -1 -1 4- 1 1 1 1111 I I I I I rrrl I I I I I I 111111 111111 111111 --I -#-4-4-F- - - - I I I I I I I- ...4111111111111ftrimm-../.9- 0.13 cfs C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2 -yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-B: North Backyard Runoff = 0.13 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 0.013 af, Depth= 0.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (sf) CN Description 1,023 98 Roofs, HSG B 1,865 98 Paved parking, HSG B 4,641 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 7,529 75 Weighted Average 4,641 61.64% Pervious Area 2,888 38.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.7 130 0.0538 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-B: North Backyard Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 [1 CITY OF EDINA 0.34 cfs J J J J L L 0-4-nOff iikrea=10081, sf L Runoff Pent/1=1.09" IF - Fla* - III Runoff -I 1- t t f- -I 1 L L I J I 11 LLI 1_11 _I LLL1 _ L _ .111IN,St. Lopits_ _ Rainfall=2.877 J J S106=0.0540 'P - C-N =79 r J _I L RUnoff VOILinie0L031 af Tc 1 3 r 1 r r 1 L L C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-C: South Backyard Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 0.031 af, Depth= 1.09" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-St Louis Park 24-hr 51 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (sf) CN Description 3,787 98 Roofs, HSG B 2,600 98 Paved parking, HSG B 7,715 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 796 98 Water Surface, HSG B 14,898 79 Weighted Average 7,715 51.79% Pervious Area 7,183 48.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.7 130 0.0540 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-C: South Backyard Hydrograph 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Ce u- 0.38- 0.36- 0.34- 0.32- 0.3- 0.28- 0.26- 0.24- 0.22- 0.2- 0.18- 0.16- 0.14- 0.12- 0.1, 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 0.91 0.853 0.81." 0.753 0.73 0.651 0.6- . I 1 I- I- I I 4 -I- +_I- 11 I -I -I I I I 1 - I MN-St a 1- 1- I I L L I I II II I LOuis-Park - Runoff VOILirrie*001•6 Runoff Perith=1.217 -T -T I 1 I I Te =7.0 thin - - - f I I 4 CN=181 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment 3S: To Bywood West Runoff = 0.83 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af, Depth= 1.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (sf) CN Description 8,947 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,631 98 Roofs, HSG B 8,284 98 Paved parking, HSG B 19,862 81 Weighted Average 8,947 45.05% Pervious Area PLANNING DEPARTMENT 10,915 54.95% Impervious Area OCT 0 5 2020 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, CITY OF ED1N,A 7), 0.53 3 0.451 • 0.47 0.35i 0.34 0.251 0.2- 0.153 0 051 0 0.551" Subcatchment 3S: To Bywood West Hydrograph -1 -I I 4 4 1- t I I J Rainfall=2.87" I T - 1 - - -1 - -1 - - 1 - -1 - t - - r - - - - - - - - - - -I -I - - - - - - - I I I -I 4 4 4 1- I- I 1 _J - _ J J L L -4 4 4 4 I- I I I 0.83 cfs L _ J J J. 1 I I J J ;-; I I Zolek,i77, /4/ 1 1 1 +_+_4- I1 1 - - - I 4 I _+_+_I1 - - 1 -I 4 4 1 I- -I -I - 1 I I I 4 4 I- I- I- I -L -L 1 I I 1- 1I1- I RnnOff Area= 91,802; _ I I - _J- j I I II Runoff 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) - - H - 7 -+- 1--1-- -i-i 1- I- i- - - T - - H 4 4 L El Inflow 0 Outflow 7-----1- I I I I t -1 I I 1 I I I A, Is. .16:4_ ea I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 -r ac - I f _1 1 1 , I L _i J t _ 1 L 4_ L , I t r I L 1 j- - _ _ 4 I- 4 + I- C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Reach PR: [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 1.754 ac, 34.39% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.45" for 2-yr event Inflow = 0.88 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.065 af Outflow = 0.88 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.065 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach PR: Hydrograph 0.9t. 0.85 0.8 I I i - - r - -1- -7 7 1- 1- 7 - t - r 11111 I I I I 1 - It r nRR rf1 0.88 cfs 1 I _ 1_L_L _ _ _ _ _ L 0.7i 1 L L _ 1 , _ 0.65 -I 1 L I- -1 1 4. I- L L 0.64' -I -I I- I- -1 -I + - - -4 1 - -1- -I- -I - H- - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51: -1 1 - it LT_ - - - - r - ' e. I I 1 I 0.25LE _ 1 1 1 _ _ I 1 - 1 1 - j 0.15 I J -1 _ 4 I 4- 1- I- I I 4 41 t' 4- 1- / "04,,417 0.05- 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCADO 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Pond 'IP: Backyard Berm [92] Warning: Device #2 is above defined storage Inflow Area = 0.821 ac, 34.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.28" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.12 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 16.70 hrs, Volume= Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 16.70 hrs, Volume= Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 902.53' @ 16.70 hrs Surf.Area= 1,794 sf Storage= 318 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 224.8 min calculated for 0.019 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 224.8 min ( 1,152.2 - 927.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 902.25' 7,246 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 902.25 903.00 903.70 904.00 Device Routing 520 3,993 5,446 9,557 Invert 0 0 1,692 1,692 3,304 4,996 2,250 7,246 Outlet Devices #1 Primary 903.00' 6.0" Round Culvert X 2.00 L= 8.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 903.00' / 903.00' S= 0.0000 '/' n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Cc= 0.900 #2 Secondary 904.80' 4.0' long x 5.0' breadth BERM Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #3 Discarded 902.25' 0.450 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 16.70 hrs HW=902.53' (Free Discharge) A -3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=902.25' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=902.25' (Free Discharge) T-2=BERM ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 0.019 af, Atten= 85%, Lag= 266.3 min 0.019 af 0.000 af 0.000 af PLANNING DEPARTME' • OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDPA CO Inflow O Outflow q Discarded 0 Primary q Secondary 1 1 1 I I_ -1- 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I- 1 t 0.12 cfs - - -I-+-I-+-I--1- 1 - I - 4 - - - - - 1- - I 1111 11111111 I I 1 1 I -T - - - - - --Ir 4 _i_ 1 1 I I - - - I I I I 1 I I 1 I - - 4- - I 1 I ---rti -r - ,ac, I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I Peak Elev'9°2•53' T :Stror0b04 3f8 , ' „„ „„ -i- r- - r - - - - - - - - - T - iti _ _ L J_L__ J_ _ _ _ J _ _ . . ,I 4 -, I - - - - - - - - I - 1 - I I I , 1 1 I I I I L I I 1 1 I 1 - - - - - - - - 0.02 cfs I -t t _ _ 4 _4 , - --F- _ I _ 4 - - I I 1 I -t - _1_ _ 1 _ ieustoin Mage / 2,000 1,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 ING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 6 2020 CITY OF EDINA 3,000 4,000 Storage (cubic-feet) C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Pond 1P: Backyard Berm Hydrograph fl /1 /I 1 n nn rsfr;*0 0.13- 0.12- 0.11- 0.1- 0.09- lA 0.08- 0.07-- 0 u. 0.06- „ • 0.05- 0.04- 0.03- 0.00 cfs /1.2*-yAlArt 0 „ en ,{„(t, 4'6f, 0 2 4 6 8 101214 161820 222426 283032 343638 404244464850 525456 586062 646668 7072 Time (hours) Pond 1P: Backyard Berm Stage-Area-Storage Surface/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 z ' •I''' 1' ' ' ' ' ' 0 Surface 0 Storage 904-' 903- L L L Elevation (feet) C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Inflow Area = Inflow Outflow = Discarded = Primary = Secondary = 0.515 ac, 44.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.02" for 2-yr event 0.48 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af 0.03 cfs @ 14.68 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 145.5 min 0.01 cfs @ 11.80 hrs, Volume= 0.038 af 0.02 cfs @ 14.68 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 902.88' @ 14.68 hrs Surf.Area= 1,098 sf Storage= 1,183 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 911.6 min calculated for 0.044 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 911.7 min ( 1,773.6 - 861.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 901.00' #2A 901.33' 847 cf 930 cf 17.80'W x 61.67'1_ x 3.00'H Field A 3,293 cf Overall - 1,176 cf Embedded = 2,117 cf x 40.0% Voids ADS N-12 24" x 15 Inside #1 Inside= 23.8"W x 23.8"H => 3.10 sf x 20.00'L = 62.0 cf Outside= 28.0"W x 28.0"H => 3.92 sf x 20.00'L = 78.4 cf 15 Chambers in 5 Rows 1,777 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 902.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 38.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 902.80' / 902.67' S= 0.0034'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 903.70' 12.0" Round EOF Pipe L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 903.70' / 903.30' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #3 Discarded 901.00' 0.450 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 11.80 hrs HW=901.04' (Free Discharge) a -3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 14.68 hrs HW=902.88' (Free Discharge) 'L-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.02 cfs @ 0.94 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=901.00' (Free Discharge) -2=EOF Pipe ( Controls 0.00 cfs) PLANNING DEPARTIVIEN7 OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDIT A C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = ADS N-12 24" (ADS N-12® Pipe) Inside= 23.8"W x 23.8"H => 3.10 sf x 20.00'L = 62.0 cf Outside= 28.0"W x 28.0"H => 3.92 sf x 20.00'L = 78.4 cf 28.0" Wide + 13.4" Spacing = 41.4" C-C Row Spacing 3 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long = 60.00' Row Length +10.0" End Stone x 2 = 61.67' Base Length 5 Rows x 28.0" Wide + 13.4" Spacing x 4 + 10.0" Side Stone x 2 = 17.80' Base Width 4.0" Base + 28.0" Chamber Height + 4.0" Cover = 3.00' Field Height 15 Chambers x 62.0 cf = 930.0 cf Chamber Storage 15 Chambers x 78.4 cf = 1,176.4 cf Displacement 3,293.1 cf Field - 1,176.4 cf Chambers = 2,116.7 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 846.7 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,776.7 cf = 0.041 of Overall Storage Efficiency = 54.0% Overall System Size = 61.67' x 17.80' x 3.00' 15 Chambers 122.0 cy Field 78.4 cy Stone 0 0 0 0 0 PLANNING DEPAMMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDW.:\ 0.1- ,, 0.00 cfs 0.15- ' '1 0.03 cfs „„--, "ZI# ".1M,2Y/07. %19 • - - 211111101Nr.- 0 dK(e 0 2 4 6 8 101214 161820 222426 283032 343638404244 464850 525456 586062 646668 7072 Time (hours) 0.02 cfs . , 0.48 cfs -4 _1- LL 0.2: 0.45- g 0.25 T I I I I _I _1 11 , - r - - - -t -+ - - -1 _ - A- - I -4- 1111111111 1111111 - - - -,- r , - 11 1,111111111111 -1-1I•Inflow-Area70.515 Peak Elev=902 •881 StOr'age=1;183 cff - q Inflow q Outflow 0 Discarded q Primary 0 Secondary 1 r 11 I 1 I I -1 1 1- , Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Stage-Area-Storage Surface/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 0 Surface 0 Storage La 904- LJ 1_ 902- rAbirri:12 24" Field A 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 I Storage (cubic-feet) LANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 100 200 L 901 0 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV MN-St Louis Park 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Hydrograph 1 I I -I -4 .4 4- I- I- I -I -I 4 4 I- I- I- I- 1, 11--",- TYPe 24-6r 110-yr Rainfall=4.20 Rurtoff ikrea 20 7 755 sf tjnOtiVokIn',16=0j048 of „ _lRu99ff peptit=1.21”; F,140‘iy-1L01110tITIF119'!-- _ _ -0000-170.-0630 TcF17.0 min 1 1 1 L II 4 1- L CN#66_, _ „„„, _1 1 . 1 4 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -I z .A>..42111111112maz/ z J I 0.65 cfs _ A 4 0 o. 0 0. 0 0. 0 55- 55- .5- 15: 0. 25- 0 .2- 15 0 0. )5: 0. -I 1 1 - - - - 1- - - I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 - -I I I 11- -- 1 I - 7 - - I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 35: g 0. i .3: CAUsers\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: To West Runoff = 0.65 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.048 af, Depth= 1.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 17,750 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,521 98 Paved parking, HSG B 484 98 Roofs, HSG B 20,755 66 Weighted Average 17,750 85.52% Pervious Area 3,005 14.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 110 0.0630 0.11 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 1S: To West Hyd rog raph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) • Runoff PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF Fr:)INA 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I 111111 I 1- I-4 4 I II- I I I 41 4.1 41. I-1 II I II I 41 41 -I -1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 - T T r -r -i --r -r -r -r -r - L 1 I J J _I IL LI 111 1 -1 ti 45 A 11111i t 1- 1- -1- -1- -1 -1 - -F - - - I- -I - -1 - - - 1- t I- I- 111 P-e -14 - 1111 i!1 - - 1- II- 11- - I - 1 - - 1 104yr_Rainfall:4.207 11111111111111111111111111111 JITL[L: -:-ROnoff-Area:1-3t352 1 1 Atin',00 -,V,-ottiriii=0;032 -1 - - + - - - I -I -1 -1 ! 1 I I 1 - 4 4 - 1. - 1 1 I I :IT 1- I H I I Runoff .Depthi=1,2-7-1-1.,-- „ 14 -1 J..L L L I 1_14 41 J_ L_ 1 I I I I 1111111 -1-177- r r r I I 71 1111 1111111111_1111_111111111.11111 1111 I „„ IIIIIII.,,.$000 _ogoo_ :. i ,0 1111 11111111111111111 1 I ' 1 I 1111 11111111111-111111111111 4 1 L I I i -1- -i - - 4 - 4 - I- -1- -1- 4 - 4 - 4 - -I- - I- - I- -1- -1- -I - -1 - 4-4--+-1--1--1Tr..i7 4 _min_ _ III 11111111111111111111N.1 1• 1117 r r I I I -1 -1T Tr1-1111ITTI-1-I I 1 -1 -1 C 71-11 __N- - - 67 1111 11111111111111111111111 L_L_L_I__I__J_J__l_l_L_L 1 I _1 J__1_1_1__L_L_I__I__J__1_ 1 -1 -1 --1 - 1- r -I 1 -I - -I - T - 7 - r -r- 1- -I- -I - 7 - 1 - I' - r-r-r-I---1 ---1 --r --r -r -r -r -r-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -1 J _1 1 1 1 0.44 cfs I I T 4 .1,-Flolk Length:--11011- 11111 11111111111111111111 1 I 1 - 1 I • -1. - - - I 1 1 - -1 - 4 4 I- I I -I - 4 ! - I- - - I- 11 11 II "//77(//47,4111111Mr 1- I I I I I 1-1--I- 1111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 [q Runoff 0.48 : 0.444 0.42 0.‘k- 0.36 0.34+: 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22-, 0.2- 0.18- 0.167 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.04-; 0.02 -- 0 4-72' 0 O LL C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-A: To City Pond Runoff = 0.44 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.032 af, Depth= 1.27" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 11,067 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 206 98 Water Surface, HSG B 2,079 98 Paved parking, HSG B 13,352 67 Weighted Average 11,067 82.89% Pervious Area 2,285 17.11% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.6 110 0.0200 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-A: To City Pond Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTAVNT OCT 0 5 2029 CITY OF EDINA - - -I 1 1 I -4 -I -I- -I- I- I 1 I J 1 1 1- 1 _L L 1 1 L I I I J J I 1 L 1 I I 1 L L LI 1J _L L L LI M0130=0.05301-7-1-- 11 1 _ 1 1 ITc4.7, min 1 I 1 1 1 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type 1124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-B: North Backyard Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.026 af, Depth= 1.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 1,023 98 Roofs, HSG B 1,865 98 Paved parking, HSG B 4,641 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 7,529 75 Weighted Average 4,641 61.64% Pervious Area 2,888 38.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.7 130 0.0538 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-B: North Backyard Hydrograph 44-• O LL 0.34 0.323] 0.33 0.283 0.263 0.243 0.2 0.18 0.163 0.14i 0.12_' 0.17 0.063 0.043 002 1 T r r r i l- -I I -11 I - - - 1- 1 r r r Type -H -24*r- , i !1',111,f-a,1111=1'.?97 -1 - -1 - - - 4 - - - -I -I - - - - 1 - 1 -1Ru+noff Ared=li529-tf - filj natf fV,431Linil 0=0;012-6-0:-- -I I- ff 101 -1 h4 41- - J _ Run o - 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 L L I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I .• / 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) 1 _y _1 -4 _ _ J _ 0.34 cfs r r r - - - - - - 1 , - - - - - I/ 1 41- L - - _ L _ L _ L L r r r 1 1 7 7 7 r - - 7 - - - - r 77 T Tr r I I I - 7 - I 1 - - - n Runoff PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA - I - - - - - - - I I I I I J _ _1_1_ 1 1 _ _ _ 11111: :11111 :: 11 1I j1 j1 11- 11- J 1 11-1 11 11 111 111 111111111111111 1-11-+ t-1-111.1741-I i:1 10.t.yr !R'pli rtf_11=4.2011, Area =14 i 898 sf Rujnoff,Vokime=9001 laf Runof! Deptk=?.137 FIoVv-LOtigth=130! fi I I 11:5130=C0540 IP I IT 1 7 1 1-1-1. Tc=20.7 min -11 1J1111 I I I I I I I 0.79 cfs • r r • f- 1 -4 1 L L L -4 11- L _ L_ I - - - -14 - +1 111 1 11 11111 - -1 -1T T1- --1 --1 -t -t r r _I_111LL 111111 _1_111LL 111111 I I 4 4I 4 4 4 111111 III III 1▪ 11111 J _IJ_ILL 111111 III III 111111 I II I I I I I 1 1 I -1 4 -I- 4 I- 111111 111111 11111 11111 1 0.8 0.65if 0.6t 0.51. • 0.45: LT. 0.4 0.37 0.25- 0.27 0.15- 0.1 0 - 0 Runoff C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-C: South Backyard Runoff = 0.79 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af, Depth= 2.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type Il 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 3,787 98 Roofs, HSG B 2,600 98 Paved parking, HSG B 7,715 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 796 98 Water Surface, HSG B 14,898 79 Weighted Average 7,715 51.79% Pervious Area 7,183 48.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.7 130 0.0540 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-C: South Backyard Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA r r- L r r- -r T r r r- I I I I I I III rr I I I rr 11 Runoff Type I,I 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Runoff Area=191862 sf Runoff Volurne=0.087 of L Runoff1Depth=2.29" Td=7.0 min CN=81 / L 1.79 cfs t, -1 -17 T C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Summary for Subcatchment 3S: To Bywood West Runoff = 1.79 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.087 af, Depth= 2.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 8,947 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,631 98 Roofs, HSG B 8,284 98 Paved parking, HSG B 19,862 81 Weighted Average 8,947 45.05% Pervious Area 10,915 54.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3S: To Bywood West Hydrograph 2- 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF '1-7.7.7'.'"\ C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type 1124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Summary for Reach PR: [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 1.754 ac, 34.39% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.95" for 10-yr event Inflow = 2.19 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.139 af Outflow = 2.19 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.139 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach PR: Hydrograph • Inflow • Outflow I 9 1 CI rf 2.19 cfs Inflow Area= .754_ ac P4 - T - r - 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTME1,4( OCT 0 5 2020 O LL CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV Type ll 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pane 23 Summary for Pond 1P: Backyard Berm [92] Warning: Device #2 is above defined storage [81] Warning: Exceeded Pond 2P by 0.17' @ 16.90 hrs Inflow Area = Inflow = Outflow = Discarded = Primary = Secondary = 0.821 ac, 34.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.16" for 10-yr event 0.69 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.079 af 0.05 cfs @ 15.94 hrs, Volume= 0.079 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 215.0 min 0.04 cfs @ 15.94 hrs, Volume= 0.076 af 0.01 cfs @ 15.94 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 903.07' @ 15.94 hrs Surf.Area= 4,133 sf Storage= 1,967 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 544.7 min calculated for 0.079 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 544.8 min ( 1,423.5 - 878.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 Elevation (feet) 902.25 903.00 903.70 904.00 902.25' 7,246 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 520 0 0 3,993 1,692 1,692 5,446 3,304 4,996 9,557 2,250 7,246 Device Routing Invert #1 Primary 903.00' #2 Secondary 904.80' #3 Discarded 902.25' Outlet Devices 6.0" Round Culvert X 2.00 L= 8.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 903.00' / 903.00' S= 0.0000 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf 4.0' long x 5.0' breadth BERM Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 0.450 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 15.94 hrs HW=903.07' (Free Discharge) 't-3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 15.94 hrs HW=903.07' (Free Discharge) A -1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.01 cfs @ 0.52 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=902.25' (Free Discharge) 2=BERM ( Controls 0.00 cfs) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA - - - + - - --r1 1 1- 1 I -I- I- -1 I- I I - - - 1- - r - 4- - 0.04 cfs .04/ / z // // /X 47/Y4 W715;11.4 0.01 cfs , 1 1 I 1 1 111[1 1 1 1 1111111 1 111111111 1 111111111 - T r - 7 -I- 7 - T T r- F -1- -i - -1 - - I- -1- T 1 I I ill t "II T T T T -rinflowiArea.70.821-FacT 0.69 cfs -11 0.05 cfs 0.75- 0.7- 0.65- 0.6 0.55- 0.5- 0.45- 0.4- 0.35- 0.3- 0.25- 0.2- 0.15- 0.1 1-4 - I j I I I 1 11 1 II 1 r T - - r - -I - - r - 1 I _1 _4 -+-- - - 1- - - r -r - 4 4-I-- - --Peak: EleiP':903.0r 11111i _ _ _:ptOrtide'=1',-1967L_ Of I I _4-1-.-{_ r - I I 0.00 cfs - r - C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 Pond 1P: Backyard Berm Hydrograph E Inflow q Outflow q Discarded O Primary O Secondary 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2224 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 5254 56 5860 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Pond 1P: Backyard Berm Stage-Area-Storage Surface/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 0 Surface LI I Storage L L L 904- '1 0 903- -- NG DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA itustoin stage Data] 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Storage (cubic-feet) P 6,000 7,000 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV Type 1124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 Summary for Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Inflow Area = Inflow = Outflow = Discarded = Primary = Secondary = 0.515 ac, 44.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for 10-yr event 1.13 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.087 af 0.53 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.087 af, Atten= 53%, Lag= 14.3 min 0.01 cfs @ 10.70 hrs, Volume= 0.040 af 0.51 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 903.23' @ 12.37 hrs Surf.Area= 1,098 sf Storage= 1,427 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 492.4 min calculated for 0.087 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 492.6 min ( 1,338.8 - 846.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage #1A 901.00' 847 cf #2A 901.33' 930 cf Storage Description 17.80'W x 61.67'L x 3.00'H Field A 3,293 cf Overall - 1,176 cf Embedded = 2,117 cf x 40.0% Voids ADS N-12 24" x 15 Inside #1 Inside= 23.8"W x 23.8"H => 3.10 sf x 20.00'L = 62.0 cf Outside= 28.0"W x 28.0"H => 3.92 sf x 20.00'L = 78.4 cf 15 Chambers in 5 Rows 1,777 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 902.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 38.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 902.80' / 902.67' S= 0.0034 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 903.70' 12.0" Round EOF Pipe L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 903.70' / 903.30' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #3 Discarded 901.00' 0.450 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 10.70 hrs HW=901.04' (Free Discharge) 4 -3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.51 cfs @ 12.37 hrs HW=903.23' 4 -1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.51 cfs @ 2.34 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=901.00' -2=EOF Pipe ( Controls 0.00 cfs) (Free Discharge) (Free Discharge) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = ADS N-12 24" (ADS N-12® Pipe) Inside= 23.8"VV x 23.8"H => 3.10 sf x 20.00'L = 62.0 cf Outside= 28.0"W x 28.0"H => 3.92 sf x 20.00'L = 78.4 cf 28.0" Wide + 13.4" Spacing = 41.4" C-C Row Spacing 3 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long = 60.00' Row Length +10.0" End Stone x 2 = 61.67' Base Length 5 Rows x 28.0" Wide + 13.4" Spacing x 4 + 10.0" Side Stone x 2 = 17.80' Base Width 4.0" Base + 28.0" Chamber Height + 4.0" Cover = 3.00' Field Height 15 Chambers x 62.0 cf = 930.0 cf Chamber Storage 15 Chambers x 78.4 cf = 1,176.4 cf Displacement 3,293.1 cf Field - 1,176.4 cf Chambers = 2,116.7 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 846.7 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,776.7 cf = 0.041 of Overall Storage Efficiency = 54.0% Overall System Size = 61.67' x 17.80' x 3.00' 15 Chambers 122.0 cy Field 78.4 cy Stone 0 0 0 0 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 Cfl • PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA Inflow Area= 0.515 ac III Peak Elev=9.2 1 Stoi.age=1,4Z7 Of 0.53 cfs 0.51 cfs 41 0.0 Elevation (feet) 904- 903- 902- 901 1,400 0 1,600 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF Fr!".' 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Storage (cubic-feet) Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Stage-Area-Storage Surface/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 q Surface El l Storage I-4 4 L J CAUsers\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Hydrograph IN Inflow 1". El Outflow 1:1 Discarded CI Primary EI Secondary 0.00 cfs 0 Iffle 0 2 4 6 8 10 12141618 20 222426 28 303234 36 384042 44 464850 52 545658 60 626466 68 7072 Time (hours) _ -I-- 0 LL • Runoff 2.08 cfs J L L L 9 01r IRair11!*1(=4.00", Ryrioff Arle0.210;7§§ sf Runoff V,0)Oni10';14$ of Runpirf Flo90:0100,119.; siope0.0630 TcL•1.6 min Icii`*061 „ I I I I I I -1- a 0., " A41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-y0- C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE REV Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 28 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: To West Runoff = 2.08 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.143 af, Depth= 3.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN 17,750 61 2,521 98 484 98 20,755 66 17,750 3,005 Description >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B Paved parking, HSG B Roofs, HSG B Weighted Average 85.52% Pervious Area 14.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 110 0.0630 0.11 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 1S: To West Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type 1124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 29 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-A: To City Pond Runoff = 1.36 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af, Depth= 3.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 11,067 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 206 98 Water Surface, HSG B 2,079 98 Paved parking, HSG B 13,352 67 Weighted Average 11,067 82.89% Pervious Area 2,285 17.11% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.6 110 0.0200 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-A: To City Pond Hydrograph 0 Runoff 1.36 cfs type II 4-tir 100-yr Riain!411!T.01 ", Runoff Area113352 sf Runoff VOILIKe=,0 1;09$ 4.1 RunOtif be'0110:7•1!'l FlOv LenOt!i--119 Siope-t-0.0?00 ci,`"0? „„ S 0 LL It ri Arodkorsrd r t .'...5 0 2 4 6 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 1 1 1 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 30 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-B: North Backyard Runoff 0.86 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.066 af, Depth= 4.59" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 1,023 98 Roofs, HSG B 1,865 98 Paved parking, HSG B 4,641 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 7,529 75 Weighted Average 4,641 61.64% Pervious Area 2,888 38.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.7 130 0.0538 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-B: North Backyard Hydrograph 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 cfs A Type 11 100Lyr Rainfall7:50"1 Run'off Ar0077t5p-Of,-- unoffVolUn',1=',0 140166 Rub6if f111,4/ $43110=Q-0530 : r f- 1 T T r r 1 1 T fr 11Trri CN#75- „ I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "1" Ia../ 0.95- 0.9, 0.85 0.8, 0.75 0.7- 0.65 0.6: 0.55 (.3 0.45 LL 0.4 0.35 0.3- 0.2,1 0.15- 0.1, 0.05 0 r L. Runoff 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) I 1LANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY oF cD.T..!1 - CAUsers\BLucasTropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE REV Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 Summary for Subcatchment 2S-C: South Backyard Runoff = 1.87 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.144 af, Depth= 5.04" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN Description 3,787 98 Roofs, HSG B 2,600 98 Paved parking, HSG B 7,715 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 796 98 Water Surface, HSG B 14,898 79 Weighted Average 7,715 51.79% Pervious Area 7,183 48.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.7 130 0.0540 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Bermuda n= 0.410 P2= 2.46" Subcatchment 2S-C: South Backyard Hydrograph n Runoff 1.87 cfs S LI ;Tyle Ii 4-1ir, 190ryr Rainfal(=7.507 Runoff Ar'ea=441 898 sf Runoff VolUmp=0;144 ,af Runof:f_Lbep.:04'1' Flow Lengtli=13T Slope Q.0540 rc=0:ti inln 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 3.97 cfs F TTTFF ; I - 4- 100-yr Type I 24-hr Rainfl1=7.60" 3- L Runoff VOlUrne=0 200 of Runoffpe'Oh=0.2711 L L Runoff i"+rea=19 862 Of LL 2- Td=7.0 enin CN=81 0 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 32 Summary for Subcatchment 3S: To Bywood West Runoff = 3.97 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.200 af, Depth= 5.27" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Area (sf) CN 8,947 61 2,631 98 8,284 98 19,862 81 8,947 10,915 Description >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B Roofs, HSG B Paved parking, HSG B Weighted Average 45.05% Pervious Area 54.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3S: To Bywood West Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) • Runoff PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA IN Inflow El Outflow - - _I _I 1 -L L L.. -I. t. L --I 4 .1 L L L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I flow A-r-ea=11.75 I 5 4_1 5.43 cfs L I T T 1 r r 1 1 r r ..4v , ,ilii' --A. -, Avzi>---zAwz zzzzziw- ' --zzzzzY- • -- - - zi ---,, / / /"/ ' A5r, 0 ,f<- . if. - ., ,-,K (.4.4 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV Type 1124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 33 Summary for Reach PR: [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 1.754 ac, 34.39% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.49" for 100-yr event Inflow = 5.43 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.511 af Outflow = 5.43 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.511 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach PR: Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 34 Summary for Pond 1P: Backyard Berm [92] Warning: Device #2 is above defined storage [81] Warning: Exceeded Pond 2P by 0.44' @ 12.96 hrs Inflow Area = Inflow Outflow = Discarded = Primary = Secondary = 0.821 ac, 34.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.79" for 100-yr event 3.75 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.259 af 0.93 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.259 af, Atten= 75%, Lag= 28.0 min 0.06 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.094 af 0.87 cfs © 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.165 af 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 903.64' © 12.60 hrs Surf.Area= 5,315 sf Storage= 4,657 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 254.4 min calculated for 0.259 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 254.5 min ( 1,097.8 - 843.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 902.25' 7,246 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 902.25 903.00 903.70 904.00 Device Routing 520 3,993 5,446 9,557 Invert 0 0 1,692 1,692 3,304 4,996 2,250 7,246 Outlet Devices #1 Primary 903.00' 6.0" Round Culvert X 2.00 L= 8.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 903.00' / 903.00' S= 0.0000 '/' n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Cc= 0.900 #2 Secondary 904.80' 4.0' long x 5.0' breadth BERM Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #3 Discarded 902.25' 0.450 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.06 cfs @ 12.60 hrs HW=903.64' (Free Discharge) 4 -3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.06 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.87 cfs © 12.60 hrs HW=903.64' (Free Discharge) AL-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.87 cfs @ 2.26 fps) §econdary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=902.25' (Free Discharge) PLANNING DEPARTMENT T-2=BERM ( Controls 0.00 cfs) OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF 77 'A C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 35 Pond 'I P: Backyard Berm Hydrograph (7) LL n Inflow El Outflow q Discarded El Primary El Secondary 0.0 cfs Mr".17/11, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 141618 20 222426 28 303234 36 384042 44 464850 52 545658 60 626466 68 7072 A6051WfriP ,44A -1.;">,:e7,2-447 Areefeff liedreferM Time (hours) Pond 'I P: Backyard Berm Stage-Area-Storage Surface/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 I I ' ' 0 500 0 Surface} Storage PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 904- 903- L L L _ J L L 3,000 4,000 Storage (cubic-feet) 7,000 6,000 5,000 2,000 1,000 Custom Stage Data • I nflow AreakLbil k Elekr•t99.§1.1 St9rage4,657 Of __L_L_I_ - -)-i - r - _ _ _ Pea — r - •1 1 3.75 cfs 0.87 cfs C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV Type 1124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 sin 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 36 Summary for Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Inflow Area = Inflow Outflow = Discarded = Primary = Secondary = 0.515 ac, 44.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.89" for 100-yr event 2.73 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.210 af 2.68 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.210 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 2.2 min 0.01 cfs @ 8.08 hrs, Volume= 0.043 af 2.46 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.165 af 0.20 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 903.92' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 1,098 sf Storage= 1,741 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 217.2 min calculated for 0.210 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 217.4 min ( 1,038.5 - 821.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 901.00' #2A 901.33' 847 cf 930 cf 17.80'W x 61.67'L x 3.00'H Field A 3,293 cf Overall - 1,176 cf Embedded = 2,117 cf x 40.0% Voids ADS N-12 24" x 15 Inside #1 Inside= 23.8"W x 23.8"H => 3.10 sf x 20.00'L = 62.0 cf Outside= 28.0"W x 28.0"H => 3.92 sf x 20.00'L = 78.4 cf 15 Chambers in 5 Rows 1,777 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 902.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 38.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 902.80' / 902.67' S= 0.0034 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 903.70' 12.0" Round EOF Pipe L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 903.70' / 903.30' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #3 Discarded 901.00' 0.450 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area PLANNING DEPARTMENI OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF ::"INA Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 8.08 hrs HW=901.04' (Free Discharge) A -3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.46 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=903.92' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 2.46 cfs @ 3.50 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=903.92' (Free Discharge) 2=EOF Pipe (Inlet Controls 0.20 cfs @ 1.59 fps) C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703 -DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 37 Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = ADS N-12 24" (ADS N-12® Pipe) Inside= 23.8"W x 23.8"H => 3.10 sf x 20.00'L = 62.0 cf Outside= 28.0"W x 28.0"H => 3.92 sf x 20.00'L = 78.4 cf 28.0" Wide + 13.4" Spacing = 41.4" C-C Row Spacing 3 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long = 60.00' Row Length +10.0" End Stone x 2 = 61.67' Base Length 5 Rows x 28.0" Wide + 13.4" Spacing x 4 + 10.0" Side Stone x 2 = 17.80' Base Width 4.0" Base + 28.0" Chamber Height + 4.0" Cover = 3.00' Field Height 15 Chambers x 62.0 cf = 930.0 cf Chamber Storage 15 Chambers x 78.4 cf = 1,176.4 cf Displacement 3,293.1 cf Field - 1,176.4 cf Chambers = 2,116.7 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 846.7 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,776.7 cf = 0.041 of Overall Storage Efficiency = 54.0% Overall System Size = 61.67' x 17.80' x 3.00' 15 Chambers 122.0 cy Field 78.4 cy Stone PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I LL 0 Inflow Area=0.51 w ac Peak Elev=903.92' Storage=if1 741 cf wimrsi 0.20 cfs irA.M70 021 Z-Z 4 6 8 1012141618202224262830323436384042444648504254565860626466687072 Time (hours) 0 2 2.73 cfs r -4- r -I I- 1 I I I i i I i I i t 1 Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Stage-Area-Storage Surface/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 " 0 Surface I Storage I- 904- L I a) 903- c 902- 901 0 L 400 600 800 1,000 Storage (cubic-feet) 1,200 '1,400 1,600 ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 800 900 1,000 C:\Users\BLucas\Dropbox\Projects\200703 - Engelsma Residence - Boyer Building\W PR_4604 Bywood 200703-DRAINAGE_REV Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=7.50" Prepared by Solution Blue, Inc. Printed 10/5/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02082 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 38 Pond 2P: Backyard Storage Pipes Hydrograph ▪ Inflow q Outflow 0 Discarded O Primary 0 Secondary CITY OF EDINA Solution ATTACHMENT C: WEB SOIL SURVEY RESULTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 6 20213 CITY OF EDINA 10-05-2020 4904 BYWOOD WEST DRAINAGE DESIGN: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEMO 44° 54' 53' N S N 7‘; Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota 470440 470460 4704E0 470860 470E00 30 cr. 44° 54' 48" N 470500 44° 54' 53" N 44° 54' 48" N 34 N Map Scale: 1:1,100 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet Meters ?al N 0 15 30 eo 92 A 0 50 100 200 300Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 USDA Natural Resources dol. Conservation Service PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 8/16/2020 CITY OF EDINA Page 1 of 3 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (A01) Area of Interest (A01) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons A A Soil Map Unit Lines CI Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit x Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip 0 Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot 63 Very Stony Spot 4)? Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation ÷+-1. Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background IN Aerial Photography PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1:12,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 16, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 26, 2014—Sep 7, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/16/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 Percent of A01 L52C Urban land-Lester complex, 2 to 18 percent slopes 1.0 56.9% U1A Urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.1 7.6% U2A Udorthents, wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.5 32.4% W Water 0.1 3.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.7 100.0% PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/16/2020 ow. Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Udorthents, wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes---Hennepin County, Minnesota Hennepin County, Minnesota U2A—Udorthents, wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol.' glwg Elevation: 660 to 1,640 feet Mean annual precipitation: 27 to 33 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Udorthents, wet substratum, and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Udorthents, Wet Substratum Setting Landform: Moraines, outwash plains, stream terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material.' Variable soil material Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 16, Jun 5, 2020 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/16/2020 rolli Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1 Map Unit Description: Urban land-Lester complex, 2 to 18 percent slopes---Hennepin County, Minnesota Hennepin County, Minnesota L52C—Urban land-Lester complex, 2 to 18 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: gj3r Elevation: 800 to 1,020 feet Mean annual precipitation: 23 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 124 to 200 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Urban land: 75 percent Lester and similar soils: 20 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Moraines Parent material: Loamy till Description of Lester Setting Landform: Hills on moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Till Typical profile Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loam Bt - 7 to 38 inches: clay loam Bk - 38 to 60 inches: loam C - 60 to 80 inches: loam PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 7 "1, CITY LDINA Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 18 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 25 percent Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent Available water capacity: High (about 10.5 inches) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/16/2020 —141.1— Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Urban land-Lester complex, 2 to '18 percent slopes---Hennepin County, Minnesota Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R103XY020MN - Loamy Upland Savannas Forage suitability group: Sloping Upland, Acid (G103XS006MN) Other vegetative classification: Sloping Upland, Acid (G103XS006MN) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kingsley Percent of map unit.• 5 percent Landform: Hills on moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sloping Upland, Acid (G103XS006MN) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 16, Jun 5, 2020 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/16/2020 00111 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description: Urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes---Hennepin County, Minnesota Hennepin County, Minnesota U1A—Urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: rvkn Elevation: 790 to 1,020 feet Mean annual precipitation: 23 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 155 to 200 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Urban land: 80 percent Udorthents, wet substratum, and similar soils: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Urban Land Setting Landform: Moraines, outwash plains, stream terraces Description of Udorthents, Wet Substratum Setting Landform: Stream terraces, moraines, outwash plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Variable soil material Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Data Source Information PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 16, Jun 5, 2020 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/16/2020 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of Date: O c to b er 28, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:Kris Aaker, As s is tant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:A varianc e from the basement requirements for a new ho me to be cons tructed at 309 Dearb o rn C o urt Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : Approve the variance application as submitted. I N TR O D U C TI O N : T he applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum basement requirements in order to construct a new one- story home at 309 D earborn C ourt. T he goal is to have one level living. T he proposed home will conform to all of the zoning ordinance requirements with the exception that it will not have a basement. T he C ity of Edina’s zoning ordinance requires that all new homes have a basement. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff report Site location Engineering memo Applicant submittal Plans /renderings The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum basement requirements in order to construct a new one-story unexcavated, slab-on-grade home at 309 Dearborn Court. The property is a 14,961 square foot vacant lot and is located at the end of Dearborn Court cul-de-sac. The proposed home will conform to all zoning ordinance requirements with the exception that it will not have a basement. The home has been designed with no basement to accommodate one level living for the owner. The City of Edina’s zoning ordinance requires that all new homes have a basement. A variance is requested from the following ordinance requirement: Basements. All single dwelling unit buildings shall be constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing 14,961 square foot lot is located at the end of Dearborn cul-de-sac. The property is a vacant lot. The lot has been vacant since subdivision with a one- story home proposed. October 28, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B-20-20, A variance from the basement requirement for a new home to be rebuilt at 309 Dearborn Court. Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their memorandum. Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North side – West front - South side – East rear – 10 feet 30 feet 10 feet 25 feet 10 feet 33.7 feet 10 feet 29.7 feet Building Coverage 25% 21.14% Basement Building Height 50% 35 feet None* 27 feet *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues • Does the proposed new home meet the criteria for approval of variances with a with a new home without a basement? Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for a variance to allow the home to be built without a basement as requested for the following reasons: STAFF REPORT Page 3 Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. “Practical difficulties” may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of not having a basement. The practical difficulty is caused by the requirement for a basement when the lot is large enough to accommodate the needs of the applicant on one floor. The home has been designed with no basement to accommodate one level living for the owner. The zoning ordinance does not take into consideration more recent views on aging in place and construction opportunities to accommodate one level living. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The proposed new home will conform to all other zoning and building code standards with the variance allowing the new single-story home to be built without a basement. The owner has indicated that there isn’t a need for a basement and all living space will be on one level. The basement isn’t necessary for a fully functional home and will allow for a comfortable one-level living experience that conforms in all other respects. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will be in keeping with the character of surrounding properties. The proposed home design reflects the character of the neighborhood in required height, scale, and mass. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and similar to surrounding properties. The home is one story with many of surrounding homes near by two stories. The proposed home is much lower in height than nearby structures. The new home will enhance the property and surrounding neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance, subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: STAFF REPORT Page 4 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey: Date stamped September 28, 2020. • Building plans and elevations dated: September 28, 2020. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. DATE: 10/21/2020 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 309 Dearborn Ct - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, flood risk, erosion and sediment control, and general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed included a stormwater management plan (8/31/20), proposed site plan (9/1/20), and hydraulic modeling (8/31/20). Summary of Work The applicant proposes a new home on an undeveloped lot. The request is for a variance to the basement requirement. Easements An existing easement for the watermain is located along the north property line, which is not shown on current plans. No encroachments shall be allowed and will be verified during permit review and at final inspection. Grading and Drainage The existing site drains to Dearborn Ct and private property to the north and east. These drainage areas remain with the proposed grading and drainage. Albeit drainage areas to Dearborn Ct and private property to the east increased, while the drainage area to private property to the north decreased. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. A large rain garden is proposed in the backyard to mitigate the new impervious surface. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development No comment. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Driveway Entrance The applicant proposes a new driveway entrance. A driveway entrance permit has been approved and issued. The street was milled & overlaid in 2018. Street patches must comply with standard plates 540 and 541 or 544. Public Utilities Water and sanitary is served from Dearborn Ct. A one-inch water service line from the curb stop to the dwelling is required per the City’s policy SP-024. Sewer and water connection fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. Miscellaneous A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. No evidence of a well is located onsite. Thus, no coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will be required. A retaining wall under 4’ is proposed in the backyard. If greater than 4’, the applicant will be required to submit drawings, cross-section, and calculations prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. ,PF 9560 STFEET 61a/.DE • PRIYEIAT 9,193 STREET GR•Dg • DRIVEWAY 90L0 {P aJa STREET (RADE • PflVOMT 64114 DRAWN BY: MATT J. REVISIONS DATE: REMARKS: 7.14-20 PRELIM 8-8-20 8-10-20 BIDS 0-16-20 PERMITS 0 g Z 0 WOODDALE RADITION-4_ !till SHEET NO. Al OF 5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 8 2020 CITY OF EDINA 305 IDEARIBORN COURT EXISTING HOUSE 309 1DEARIBORN COURT EXISTING HOUSE 315 IDEAR13ORN COURT EXISTING HOUSE Cil O ot ck.:1 2. Cr) CITY OF EDINA VNICI9 AO Ain HOZ p g d2s IN3NIHN/d20 ON 1M IP( OF EDIN 1 117 • t, 1: - • • ; • .4.0 • lj (• • ••;"'., , , • .• •.• • ' . • • - • • • 4- PLANNING DEPARTMENT S: 315 DEAF • 1 c= CC, C.1 cry L1 L1 0 A 4:8 N '12 0 \ 4A1 -2.5' Iq cv 1.6 43 fl C pizoPoisev ri9ar%-• Lr-vrL- Hcm.):o to 44. 0 0 451.6 30 \Far FENCE-1 -95 SILT FEN • X(951 5) 9.6 ' 0 0 5 0.5 x9 0.3 JRN COURT 949.0 TC •4.1k93- 949.2 TC 949: 949'5 7.0 ...... c'3 '00"E 95°'.5 5 949.3 TC • - • -?(951.0 c\I GARA GE 953.5 \ 95 3 GFE= a g x -4- r-: (231 ----. N 2.0 O scNI \ 19 `',45 . I. 023 .. ,- so Q. .. , . ,, .... ... 4 07 , x 9 -I.1 x95\ x 951.6 kg -"•3 4' .." "4- : 9 .= -21-,,g 2"g5O 95 ux: „. • p : 9 9513+ 6 9 499"A 9 952-:\ -. .-- In Arc- ! Cr; ,(94.q -" .5 -, 91 5.\ 5) 10 0 ••• .'. - .. ....... a, )4. - 43 ' 0 .... .--' -..,94.9•11•° ) y;5. \ i 1-959) 2 P) ..\ • • ..... - . ,,,) <,), - ' 95. \ •*. .. .•-•/• C:31 954'() U 9 5 \ .-."5 -7 4:1-i'h -7 4.9519?5'2:9 951.2 7 (s) so 952 1' I ,..: 9555 ...• - 3.- 4 - .--' 54 '2. -51:3 e. ......-- ,:gkc‘\ --\ \ 51\d35‘11 '. .71' .1 • co 9 0 4 I \ \---------- ‘..--- crt ta 'k •° .<'' jOP ,z, *IS \ \ ------95. :k :,\ ... -?..„9n* lie5-7?-9 50 Fa/1k_ .c0,,akl ITIlk 95k:\ -;)<5.$.1 • ..'- 952. ,c,e,0,10 0,*--,ak-1 --/.. TB gi;5,1..,,,g5.5tts4-:3 ,„...--- k..... 0.1 ---` 4 ? \).. 13 bc \ v., -1 \ 954" 5 • 117) .60X--.9. • • . 00 552.7 ... '--• : 1 . ' Li sc: 3 5 ?‘"'' QC:C‘:' . \ ........... .. 0 r'-Y''2- * 5 .... 0 ,300 • i AkI' 5 .. 11::. 955:‘,/.. 955' 55-` is g5th ..1 0 .° I 9 *- i4--/- - 95 sy_5........... ... .95.5:4 O OAK-22 ./I • I 1 .- .................... Y-956, eb .--;/:.95:.7:-.... ... -.•:74-95.1•01°4):::1111:11:::::::*.1110AK0-13 ..... iiii ... .f:-.' ..... 4:-..5.- .97:.............1.- ........"......:5 ................... ...... ........................ ................................................ N4wea E ......... ,.i6B..."(. :Z 1.[7 5 .•• ........... --: ,-- - ../...95 :\ .... OAKv.41' 960.6 . ....... OAK-9 ....... 7 .... .... c 91300TT I INI-..... 98f1.6" .......... ........•• ............. 1.1 .'960. .... ../...g •••......-••- ...••• ... ...... ..... %--. • ............ .......... . ....-.. . _ ..... ..... ..... ......... ....................... ..... • • 06A11-6"...$.88-9-29147•TIE-............------- • ................ ......•••• .....•• 965.8 .......... .965. .... 9 06K--,1-9* ........ .......... .. .... ... OAK-14 •. N#4, % 4 1.041, I 957,8 I OAK-13 I :-• .. ..r. 0.8 952 OAK--•6 -9516 I/ 0.AK-12 • 953 \ 9 k4 kg N x 49.1 >< • x9 14\ 4‘ 53 6 Noly o ,g3'1:1c) 954- OAK-7 955.7 OAK-7 10 \ 949.9 \x II 949.8 1 Nr) 49.9 959 0) x 948.2 FND IP 1/2 95147 Q0' CI A 0 12, x 947.5 -.963:1. 'CHERRY-13, %.. . •••• %... . . Land Surveyors Civil Engineers Land Planners 941 I tO -a Gc, -- "Hedlund Engineering Services f ori Staratots Certificate irm 9201 East Bloomington Freeway 44\ Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 Phone: 888-0289 s 88 °29'47"E 58.60 City of i ma Bicig. Dept. / 7ft7Ftl, UO. X" 007 DERF?..& G Iii??' 305 0 951,E9Vi \ - - 999,$ / 0 C41 O \ 50. Il C. 0 PROPO%er) txx/rt- i-iout.a j c 44. 950.1 i951,0 /05.73 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY N 88 ° 22' E 10 D I Mosby certify that on / / I surveyed the property the above plat is a correct representation of said survey. =151..c. = NIR SURVEY FOR: Jeff Clark Const. DESCRIBED AS: Lot 2, Block 1, BLAKE WOODS, Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota and easements of record. City of TOP OF FOUNDATION reserving GARAGE FLOOR BASEMENT FLOOR SEWER SERVICE ELEV. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS EXISTING ELEVATIONS DRAINAGE DIRECTIONS DENOTES LOT CORNERS : DENOTES OFFSET STAKE: N r 0 described above and that d o 0 —0 CO N In 950,5 t CAZ 1 61 4,01, )1,q, L. D./Lindgren, Licerfse No. 14376 , ' •—i2J " ,to.0 411! .'+•••1 Date By 0 0 c138. 9 35 ,12 BOOK___ PAGE JOB NO. 87 R - 2/5 VNICI3 JO A110 INTALLINd3d ONINNVld F140 IP 1/2 /6 14,131" ' 936.2 • 94 -J 951 ra 6) Wildest We have shown the location of utilities on the surveyed property by observed evidence only. There may be underground utilities encumbering the subject property we am unaware. Please note that we have not placed a Gopher Stale One Call for this survey. There may or may not be underground utilities in the mapped area, therefore extreme caution must be exercise before any excavation lakes place on or near this site. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilities located on the subject property. Before dig,ging, you aro required by law to notify Gopher State One Call al least 48 hours in advance at 651/454-0002. 7) Grading must maintain a minimum 2% slope gradient to account:date positive drainage. 8) All set offset irons are measured to hundredths of afoot and can be used as benchmarks for consnuction. 9) The proposed driveway shown is conceptual only and does not purport to show exactly how the driveway shall be built. 10) Proposed grades shown adjacent to building foundation refers to lop of black dirt. II) Verify sanitary service invert prior to any concrete work. Tree Summary To be Removed Tree # Species DIRI Condition Stems Protected Removable 1 Maple, sliver 25.0 Good 1 No Yes 2 Amen 14.0 Poor 1 No Yee 3 Maple, saver 15-0 Good 1 No Yes 4 Elm, American 16.5 Good 1 Yes No 5 Maple, silver 24,0 Good 1 No Yes 6 Ash, green 19.0 Good 1 No Yes 7 Walnut, black 16.5 Good 1 Yes No 8 DIN FM 14,5 doed 1 No Yes g Walnut, black 42.0 Fair 1 Yes No io Elrn, red 10.0 Good 1 Yes No 11 Elm, American 11.5 Good 1 Yes No 12 Elm, American 8.5 Good 1 _ Y. _ _ No 13 Aspen 10.0 Good I No Yes 14 Oak, red 12.5 Good 1 Yes No 15 Cherry, black 12.0 Good 1 Yes No 16 Oak, red 8.0 Good 1 Yes No 17 Oak, red 11.0 Good 1 Y. Na 18 Aspen 30.0 Poor 1 No Yes 19 girth, paper 9.5 Good 1 Yes No 20 Elm, American 8.5 Good 1 Yes No 21 Oak, red WS Good 1 Yes No 22 Butternut 8.5 Good 1 Yes No 23 Boxelder 19.0 Good 2 No Yes Proposed Elevations (Slab on Gradel Proposed Garage Floor Elevation 953.5 Prop.ed Top of Slab Elevation -933.8 Proposed Building Coverage Lot Arta -14,961 S.F. House Area 9. 3,163 S.F. Total Ana - 3,163 S.F. Coverage.,21.14% Proposed Hardcover Lot Mu 19,961 S.F. House Arta 3,163 S1. Driveway Area 784 S.F. Stoop Area 140 S.F. Sidewalk Area 93 S.F. Total Area 4,180 S.F. Coverage-27.94% SURVEY LEGEND rt10 IP I/21 . / 2193 .1 07 ' I/O 91 P. 0 ai FIELD CREW NO. BY DATE BT, AT, DR JRS 8/12/2020 DRAWN 2 -RS WI/2020 JJA CHECKED JJA DATE 069012025 REVISION PROPOSED CONDITIONS REVISED PROPOSED CONDITIONS FILE NO. 9745-090 TWP:117-RGE.21-SEC.30 Hennepin County EDINA, MINNESOTA SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. 7 tsA HER S PLHa 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 WIYVV.SATHRE.COM CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PROPOSED CONDITIONS PREPARED FOR: WOODDALE BUILDERS DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED Lot 3, Bieck 1, BLAKE WOODS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Mion.ota. STANDARD NOTES LOT 1) Site Address: 309 Dearborn Ct, Edina, MN 2) A title opinion was not furnished to the surveyor es part of this survey. Only easements per the recorded plat are shown unless otherwise denoted hereon. 3) Parcel Area Information: Gross Area: 14,961 s.f. - 0.393 acres 4) Benchmark: Elevations are based on sanitary manhole rim et center of Dearborn Court which has an elevation of. 950.17 feet (NOVD29). 5) Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property Is R-I (Single Dwelling Irnit) per the City of Edina's zoning map. The setback, height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation are as follows: Principal Structure Setbacks - Street(s): 30 feet or avenge front setback Side: 10 feet Bean 25 feel Building Coverage: 25 percent of lot arm • 551.5 054.8 D IP 1/2 950.4 949.5/ rvicr7 5 a * LOCK 34.9 9502 to s56 Fie • 44555' --.),20.04 _ 9518 es\ . 9506 27.49 5 cm w Eas.) N89.13,4 30.27 (PLAT) tyi E-.)` E S S 0 1r1 Al PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP ?) 8 2020. CITY OF EDINA Bearings we based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (NAD 83 - 1986 e4.) 20 10 0 10 20 40 SCALE IN FEET l - .5 'R.j x ~l 1 -, - " N I' c - ' L 1 ' 0 c 'Il • N• N ...X= •,l- • •Ii. s C -7 -.1,,t •• Al A '1,' E 1 ' '''' 1.,. o I '. , . 0.19: 1 \\. \ \:1-' tri'''''‘ Ilv Please note that the zoning information shown hereon may have been amended through a city process. We recommend that a zoning leiter be obtained from the Zoning Administrator for the current restrictions for this site. All setback information and hardcover date for planning and design must be verified by all parties involved in the design and planning process. We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer. PIEZOMETER WOE WALKOUT ELEVATION POWER POLE FFE MST FLOOR ELEVATION GUY WIRE GFE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION ROOF DRAIN TOE TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV. LIFT STATION LOE LOWEST OPENING ELEV. SANITARY MANHOLE P. ••••, •• • • ' 1 CONCRETE SANITARY CLEANEST P.#7,1r2.0,12•1•1 BITUMINOUS STORM MANHOLE BULGING SETBACK UNE STORM DRAIN -erY - CABLE TV CATCH BASIN CONCRETE CURB FLARED END SECTION i 'Tap CONTOUR EXISTING WEE CONIFEROUS CONTOUR PROPOSED TREE DEODUOUS GUARD RAL TREE CONIFEROUS REMOVED - Dr - DRAIN TILE TREE DECIDUOUS REMOVED -mc- ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE MANHOLE -5-0- FENCE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL - r0- FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND 11111.1TY MANHOLE -a.- GAS UNDERGROUND UTILITY PEDESTAL -ottrJ- OVERHEAD UTILITY UTILITY VAULT r-v-YWY-) TREE UNE WATERMAN MANHOLE 0- SANITARY SEWER WATER METER STORM SEWER .0. WATER SPIGOT - TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND e WELL o RETAINING WALL 55 MONITORING WELL - UR- UTILITY UNDERGROUND (I) CURB STOP - I - WATERMAN tr HYDRANT D4 GATE VALVE 111111111 RAILROAD TRACKS u==--- TRAFFIC SIGNAL IDA IRRIGATION VALVE RAILROAD SIGNAL IR POST INDICATOR VALVE 0- RAILROAD SWITCH -9,- SIGN SATELLITE DISH O SOL BORING WETLAND BUFFER AGN LOT 2 °,?ss / 954.2 tr‘9 3 1 ,1s 1,6'5 J. is<99 949.1. 949•In I4\ -4. s 9.8 II r Ti \ "IN \95 \ \\9\55.NS" 9749.191.l,5 5 9580 x9507 105.73 (PLAT) 999.5 x949.6 587.38.02'11.104.813(4EAS.) --9 EXISTING HOUSE 949.7 05 m®®®eEtepp®-vgelaoeeeBE2>o►>xxxx.o® PK NAIL MONUMENT SET PK HAIL MONUMENT FOLD PK NAIL W/ ALUMINUM DISC SURVEY CONTROL POINT A/C UNIT CABLE TV PEDESTAL. ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC OUTLET TARO LIGHT LIGHT POLE FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FIRE DEPT. HOOK VP FLAG POLE FUEL PUMP FUEL TANK PROPANE TANK CAS METER GAS VALVE GAS MANHOLE GENERATOR GUARD POST HAND HOLE MAIL BOX CAST IRON MONUMENT IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET 00. IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND < DRILL HOLE FIXED CHISELED 'X' MONUMENT SET ID CHISELED we MONUMENT FOUND a) REBAR MONUMENT FOUND 0 6r.t' lB O 4,4 -I A V 95L2 7 LL1 LIJ NICI3 x947.5 .998.2 fhD P I/2 9e17 949.6 tilkOzP 9018 9581 USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SAITIRE-SERGOUIST, INC:s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHREBERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHREBERMIUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supertision and that I ansa duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 27th day °fluty, 2020. I redi Averbeck, PLS Minnesota License No.53692 javerbeekersathre.corn FINAL GRADE ASBUILT FOR: CUSTOM RENOVATION PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ASBUILT ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR = 953.8 954.0 TOP OF FOUND. = 956.0 956.0 LOWEST FLOOR = 947.3 947.0 (ftg) FIRST FLOOR = 956.7 956.8 LEGEND • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET x1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION oh w DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE X DENOTES EXISTING FENCE c-Q-) DENOTES UTILITY POLE NOTES - BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Easements, appurtenances, and encumbrances may exist in addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to revision upon receipt of a title insurance commitment or attorneys title opinion. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Lan • Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: 9-1-20 Reg. No. 44655 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 315 DEARBORN COURT, EDINA, MN 948.9 TC@CB 948.8 TC 950.0 OAK.. 1/2 DFAD -29 • • • • JOB#19067 CRE LAND SURVEYING Blaine, MN 55449 - 763-238-6278 js.acrelandsurvemgmail.com 1 1 10 12 13 14 15 15 17 ifs 10 110 111 02 113 114 115 116 1 7 08 119 go 952.6 OAK-6 952.2 POP-12 OAK-2,6 955.7 OAK-7 DEARBORN COURT 0 O TC 949.0 0 . i" Lci • o ox ..,(94.9. • d 5Y, ',I 94 • )96‘•C) ,.E x.. 1 ), C: 94,9 i. .0) 41P i. .; \ .0 ..... 3'-' '. .... ,:..•.'...,!9 ... 950.1)9) ,2_ !:: --A • 51 • .• •.. f ••-t-c..,, .9 ..• e . ...., 6 0 5 'i..9 '6 )(1-1g6 9 . 51 : ... v):'.?30 -1(9' Xg4 90- .92497.5.01_950 ...... '3 4.00"E 92/ 50 3 950 a50 . • 1-9 9 : - I f -C; • 2i )26-:- • • X9`: II 952.5 TB 95'2-14 .5i 96J4.4 $~xrt Y.' • . • • . 9 4'.0 I 95 952.7 .1' " 9. • )(,: 0.19. Y. ..• 95\ • g 949.2 TC 9535 ': n545 )(9b41 ............ 55. 9549 •*. . ,./..955:5'....„ 5-c's ................. •••• 4. •• •• •• ::-.4 • ;96, ........ (3595 •\ 6'... I -... 1- .. ••• .. ............ 1 ..... .... ....955' ..... .............. .. ... ••• •••. - . ..... ' 6 7- ...... ....... . ......... .. • .... 15.8. A .................... ...... • • 949.5 TC ..... 90* 955:‘ 950.3 950. X TV X 951.0 . •• • ..... ............. TB 60-5 ............... EB. ............ 953.6 BOX-X2-11 ) 953.2 OAK-7 ...... ••-X953.1 X 953.2 94'45 \ 00(7" 953.3 CHERRY-14 9542 OAK-6 954.8•.....• OAK-15 ''•• CP CP 953.7 POP-8 ••. 'CHERRY-13 ••••• . . •••CHERRY-17 0 5.5:4 OAK-22 DEARBORN STREET TC 951.7 TC 952.8 TC IE '11 i 0113 :41J : • o 00 .... OAK-13 960.6 . . ...... OAK-9 .......................... 960.6' ................. .. • 960 ............. ......... ..... .. .......... .... , AK ••••• .••• .... ..• ........ . .• ........ . 8S929'47E. ..... ........ ... .. OAK,.11'• ... . ..... 960..5 •• COTTON ..... . ...... 9.643:8 .............. ..... OAK-14 • .. • ..„ • ......... 06.8 .......... '965 .... 98.9 ..... ..... '957.5 OAK-12 • • • • • .•. ••. ••••••• 152:78 AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL LOT = ±13184 sq. ft. Existing Hse/Porches = ±2081 Sq. Ft. Existing Drwy/Sdwk = ±716 Sq. Ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 4, Block 1, BLAKE WOODS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. X 952.7 NORTH 0 20 1w1 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 SEP 2 8 2020 CITY OF EDINA 954.1 OAK-6 954.6 OAK-7 3 9 • 'X . IJ 957:8 I OAK-13 I OSHUA P. SCHNEIDER 951.2 PROJECT: Stormwater Plan Projectr: 9745-090 I Locallore 309 Dearborn Ct, Edina MN Prepared for. Wooddal Builders Prepared by: Satire-Be rgquistinc. Date:08/31121 Revised: Single faniV homes are exempt from Minnehaha Creek Watershed district stommaterrequiremeris, the City of Edina requires no net increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring properties. Rate design should be for the 10yr storm evert based onA9es-14 rainfall and volume for the MOS 1.1". Based on Websolis survey soils on the site are L52C Lester Complex soils - with a Bi-hydrualic soils rating. Soilwhith infillation rate of 0.3inittr have been used for this model VoitmetortrolshalbeachievedviaafrenchdrainOlertrenctit ibis shall provide volume reduction to meet the 1.1" MIDS standard. Total Warmer Ansa. Trial SleAreaw Percent Impiritore priding Hardcover Area - 0.092 Ft = 411 d 1.20 it PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP '2), 8 Mt) CITY OF EDINA SURVEY LEGEND ROCK BERM ENTRANCE SILT FENCE DEPTH VARIES (SEE ABODE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER T E LAWS OF THE ST Ee MINNESOTA. ..rer---s A. Wiemersiage, P.E. Date: 08/31/20 Lie, No. 9180 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARED FOR: WOODDALE BUILDERS EXISTING HOUSE 819., StonnwaterSummany Subject Rate &Volume Control fropesedHerdcomwAraa Aram,' Hass Area drSida wak Areal potictslorp_ Area ct Drie Armed Rem Patio 3.1e3 SF 93 SF 140SF 734 SF 335 4,43600 SF 14.931.00 SF 300% Amid Hae a& Bayne Ares Area of ConXere • *IF/porch Area d °rimy./ Tdal Hisdoc•Ar Area., Told Sea Area= IseSFICO7IF44140J14 Ottesencew 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 00 S. 14.951 DO SF 0.0% 4.430 00 Abstraction Volume Required: R±Vred AbstradIon- Harelcovw AhstradIonVokrne Required- 1 1 hone. = 0.032 4,486 s' 4.400 s' 4410049ch Depth = 0.3 ire'tr?!40hrs 0.30 49= 14.4 tr Rake Ogden RG Contour 948.8 950 950.3 CurnmulativeVcidSicrageqcfi (Acre-Feet) 0 0.00 412 0.01 0.00 Area (sf) Bottom _ 515 top.__- 1,200 overflow 1,200 PROPOSED DRAINAGE I , Z EXISTING DRAINAGE 27.49 (ans.) nitil91 7 (PLA 3i45"1V 30.2T) 27.49 (MEas.) N8913'45"yi 30.27 (PLAT) Abstraction RequIrea 411 d Ahdrattion Pernhied 412 Id Ciferancei 0 ct To Shoa- l Rate (ds) Vokmie (al) 1E !0.08 L 0.003 Frei:mad 10Year 1P 0.38 0.02 ' Wel Rate (cfsify_olume (at) ExidinaltlYear 1L 0.97 0.051 Props ed113Yaar 2L • i 0.44 I 0.02 MITS OF DISTURBANCE/SOD MITS OF BOTTOM/GARDEN SIZE (PERIMETER LAVI EDGING) MINIMUM TWO ROWS OF SOD Construction Sequencing 1, Delineate the location of areas not to be disturbed before work begins. 2. Establish sediment control practices on alt down gradient perimeters before any up gradient land disturbing activities begin. These practices shall remain In place until final staldfization has been established. 3. Install all perimeter sediment control devices and construction entrances. The timing of installation of sediment control practices may be adjusted In order to accommodate short-term activities, but sediment control practices must be installed before the next precipitation event even If the short-term activity is not complete. 4. Contact the City for approval of the sediment control devices. 5. Rough grade the site. 6. Install utilities. 7. Install pavements. 8. Install lawn and landscape 8 soil amendments. 9. Restore all disturbed areas. 10. Clean all storm sewer and conveyance systems. 11. After all disturbed areas are stabilized, obtain approval horn the City and/or Watershed District. 12. Remove all temporary sediment control devices. SURROUNDING TURF • ".•.•.• A To North Rate (ds) Vokrne (at) 2E 0.51 E 2P aoe ' oao ! 0.01 ! 1 Rain Giddies HWL 2-Yr I 949.29 10-Yr _ sea 100 -Yr 950.03 Rear Ywd -To East/salts Rate (ds) ! IVOkine (a)) 3E ors 0.03 BMP 0.02 ••••••••:•:•:;:•:-: Exidirp 10•Yeas OF RAIN GARDEN TO BY ENGINEER LOCATION AND SIZE BE APPROVE . . . . . .'.." ' • - • .• •- • -• EL RIJN M GARDEN VEGETATION SHALL BE GARDEN VARIETY PERENNIALS. SHRUBS, OR NATIVE PLANTS FROM A CONTAINER (PLUG TO HALF GALLON SIZE) PLACED ACCORDING TO RECOMMENDED PUNT SPACING REQUIREMENTS OR AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. FNONFTRFO SOD TOP 5. OF RAMC GARDEN SHAM BE ENGINEERED SOILS. USE OV DIE SOILS FOR inc REMAINING PROVIDED THAT SAND SEEM IS INTERSECTED WHEN BASIN IS CONSTRUCTED. SHOULD SAND SEEM NOT BE FOUND THEN THE ENGINEERED SOILS LISTED BELOW SHALL BE USED. (OCSWCO MIX 0) 805 COARSE-WASHED SAND (MNDOT 3125) 20R LEAF-UTTER COMPOST (ORGANIC. GRADE 2, MNOOT 3890) NO TOPSOIL OR ON-SITE SOILS MAY BE USED IN ENGINEERED SOIL MIX UNLESS APPROVED BY 1HE ENGINEER. 3 RING INFILIROMETOR TESTING AND INF1LIRAllON 'MST ON ENGINEERED SOILS MAY BE REQUIRED AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. MINIMUM 2 ROWS DIRECT RUN-OFF FROM IMPERVIOUS SPACE MEETING CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE mizEDEleXagED-vA®-ricre ace es >01o.D*x xx • 0® CAST IRON MONUMENT PIEZOMETER IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET 'DA POWER POLE IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND < GUY WIRE DRILL HOLE FOUND g ROOF DRAIN CHISELED •X" MONUMENT SET ID UFT STATION CHISELED "X' MONUMENT FOUND SANITARY MANHOLE REBAR MONUMENT FOUND * SANITARY CLEANOUT PK NAIL MONUMENT SET ® STORM MANHOLE PK NAIL MONUMENT FOUND 0 STORM DRAIN PK NAIL W/ ALUMINUM DISC Di CATCH BASIN SURVEY CONTROL POINT 4:1 FLARED END SECTION A/C UNIT CABLE TV PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC OUTLET YARD UGHT UGHT POLE FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FIRE DEPT. HOOK UP FLAG POLE FUEL PUMP FUEL TANK PROPANE TANK GAS METER GAS VALVE GAS MANHOLE GENERATOR GUARD POST HAND HOLE MAIL BOX WOE WALKOUT ELEVATION FFE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION GFE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TOF TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV. LOE LOWEST OPENING ELEV. ." •" I CONCRETE l"-"D'X',/,--.1.54s1 BITUMINOUS --/s/-/s/- BUILDING SETBACK UNE -GN- CABLE TV , CONCRETE CURB - CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED GUARO RAIL PLAN VIEW A 4 S 02E6 olBsot TYPE RECON. Score A SAND/GRAVEL 1r-113' B SANS WITH CLAY OR SILT 9,12' C CLAY OR SILT WITH SAND 6"-9' 13 CLAYS OR SILTS 5' Bearings are based an the Hennepin County Coordinate System (NAD 03.1986 adj.) 20 10 0 10 20 40 ; TREE CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS REMOVED - DT- DRAIN TIE TREE DECIDUOUS REMOVED -EEG- ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND 10 TELEPHONE MANHOLE --X-X- FENCE III TELEPHONE PEDESTAL - TO- FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND to u nun MANHOLE -046- GAS UNDERGROUND ID UTIUTY PEDESTAL -OM- OVERHEAD MLITT DI UTILITY VAULT f'Y'sChrYsr \ TREE UNE ® WATERMAIN MANHOLE -5 SANITARY SEWER O WATER METER ”-- STORM SEWER 49. WATER SPIGOT -TM- TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND e WELL RETAINING WALL a MONITORING WELL -1.M.- UTUTY UNDERGROUND ID CURB STOP - I - WATERMAIN P4 GATE VALVE 1===.--- TRAFFIC SIGNAL "Cr HYDRANT 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 4 RAILROAD TRACKS MO IRRIGATION VALVE "DI- RAILROAD SIGNAL El POST INDICATOR VALVE 0- RAILROAD SWITCH rtn. SIGN e SATELLITE DISH EI SOIL BORING ® WETLAND BUFFER SIGN SCALE IN FEET MINIMUM 2 RODS OF SCO SOD LIMITS OF BOTTOM 3:1 A -• N S A E ..- ' ...1; 1 M d .,n• _,Itrj1M+7....... /. V I DI A P 1 A - 8‘ L , ' S ,.., -''- AP wi '-1 R, _ PA I n4M gh . e .s. t . .61 en IA 1 ' \ 144)........ ligil/M/1 ENGINEERED SOILS II 15' MIN DEM ;; I'll =;111111111111-11. IP 11Mflf=lf=11=11.11=n= FULL VEGETATION OR S DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH LOOSEN SUBSOILS 12" DEEP TO REMOVE COMPACTION ENGINEERED SOIL CROSS SECTION (SEE ABOVE) 1E 11.0. 1. FINA 5. L GRADE AND MULCHING SHALL BE DONE BY HAND. 2. NO EQUIPMENT DILL BE ALLOWED ON THE RMN GARDEN AFTER EXCAVATOR BEGINS. 3. PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE INSTALLED AND REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL TURF IS ESTABLISHED MOUND RAIN CARDEN. 4. OMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING ENGINEER FOR INSPECTION OF RAIN GARDEN FOR (1) FINALIZING RAIN GARDEN SIZE AND LOCATION. (2 OBSERVATION OF EXCAVATOR ANC SCARIFYING OF SUBSOIL. (3 APPROVAL TO SACKFUL WITH ENGINEERED SOILS. (4 FINAL INSPECTION WTH MULCH AND PLANTS INSTALLED. TWP:117•RGE.21-SEC.30 FILE NO. REVISION FIELD CREW NO. BY DATE USE (INCLUDING COPYING. DISTRIBUTION. AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRETERGOUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USEWITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGCLUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. Hennepin County PROPOSED CONDITIONS BT. AT, DR 8/12/2020 JRS T745-090 Ff Op ti BRAVO( SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. X JJA EDINA, MINNESOTA re 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952)476-6000 eTE WYVVV.SATHRE.COM CHECKED JJA DATE 08/10/2020 FYPON ML240-8 1x6 SMOOTH ALL PRIME FYPON MLD603-8 FYPON MLD610-E 14"x14" SMOOTH COLUMN WRAP MITERED CORNERS YPON MLD610-8 lx6 EORAL 5/4 x8 LP TRIM TE RED FREIZE BD HARDI-SHAKE SIDING AMIE. 411111111111. ,AWAIWARTINTANIANE6. ANA& 1x2 LP TRIM TEXTURED ON 4\ih. 5/4x8 LP TRIM TEXTURED ALUMINUM SOFFIT 4 FASCIA 12 12 I PITCH 1x4 OVER 2x10 FASCIA (GABLES) WRAP WI ALUM. FRONT COLUMN SCALE 1/2" = 1,-0" 5/4x8 LP TRIM FREIZE BP 1x4 OVER 2x10 FASCIA (GABLES) WRAP LW ALUM. gmeregme.--. .fte--.1ww. 3" LP SMARTSIDE SMOOTH 6*x6"x6" CORBEL 12 12 PITCH 6" BOX OUT 1x2 LP TRIM ON 5/4x8 LP TRIM 5/4x8 LP TRIM TEXTURED FREIZE BD II MEI MEM.. MEM.. MINIMISE MENEM MENEM 5/4)0 LP TRIM TEXTURED FREIZE BD HARDI SHAKE CORNERS OVERLA D N" SMOOTH COLUMN SEE DETAIL .nII ME EN Es AMS MIN 'MUM1 1. 1111111 M. ilik1 11 INEMIENIEMEMEMIEMIEMliMIML HARPI-SHAKE SIDING 1x2 LP TRIM TEXTURED ON 5/4x8 LP TRIM TEXTURED 12 PITCH 18 51-42448 RO. 2-0 1/4"x4.-0 ALUMINUM SOFFIT 4 FASCIA I 41.11 MO MIE 1 1.1k MIL. 4 HMI /IEEE M /E, MEM. IMMINI. MIMI IIINIIIE ,Nlin WM. RIDGE VENTS TAMKO HERITAGE 30YR SHINGLES GUTTERS I2:12 PITCH ROOF (3) FIXED 3636 RO. 3-0 1/4"x3'-0 1/4" ADDRESS STONE FRONT ELEVATION 'A' SCALE 1/4" = 11 -0" DRAWN BY: MATT J. REVISIONS DATE REMARKS. 7-14-20 PREUM 6-6-20 0-10-20 BIDS 9-16-20 PERMITS E SHEET NO. OF Al PLANNING DEPARTMENT REAR ELEVATION SEP 2 8 2020 SCALE 1/4" = P-0" CITY OF EDINA ll 4 1 5/4x4 LP TRIM TEXTURED WINDOW WRAP 5/4x8 LP TRIM TEXTURED HARDI-SHAKE SIDING EZ SCREENS u A A,\. VAU ',MAU\ A , 10" LP WRAP TEXTURED COLUMN ---)1 5/4x8 LP TRIM TEXTURED iri ti FLASHING FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER RS. PLYWOOD PANELS, JUNCTION OF ROOF AND WALLS, CHIMENYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SIDING MATERIALS, OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL PATIO DOORS TO HAVE FLASHING UNDER THRESHOLD AND BEHIND THRESHOLD SUPPORT. ALL OPENINGS TO EXTERIOR MUST BE CAULKED 4 FLASHED ICE PAM PROTECTION I LAYER OF 1140 COATED ROOFING OR COATED GLASS G BASE SHEET SHALL BE APPLIED FROM THE EAVES TO A LINE 24" INSIDE THE EXTERIOR WALL LINE WITH ALL LAPS CEMENTED TOGETHER ATTIC VENTILATION PROVIDE ATTIC VENTILATION EQUAL TO 1/300 OF ATTIC AREA. ROOF VENTS - 50% SOFFIT VENTS - 50% NOTE: GUTTERS WI SCREENS COMPLETE HOUSE RIDGE VENTS RIDGE VENTS TAMKO HERITAGE 30YR SHINGLES IllatmilIMINIAININ nolmilenimmunin•Ini •MMMIM•MM•IM•IM 1111111.1 IIMIIIIIINIMMII . MOMOMOIIIIIIIMIIMMOMMI 1111111. INIIIIIIIIINIINIIMIIMINIII NM •.i.ui..i..i IIIMMIMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIMI MIMI MINION'S MEI_ IIIMIMIN IMMO IMMIIIIMIM MIMI IMIONIONI. IMMINI 11111.111.1111IN MMIMMIIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMIIIIIIIIMINMOMMIIIIMMI IMIM NIIIIIIIIIIIIM IINOINII 1111111111111MINIIMINIIIIIIINIINIIMINIIMI. 'IMO MINIUM" .11111111111111111111111111111111.1111.11MIIMIIIIMMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIM MIIMIMIN 1111.111.11111MOMMINNIIMIMINMIMIMIMIMIMIMMIMOMMMIMIN NMOMMOM 1111.1111111. IIIIIIIIIMIIINIIMIINIIMIIMIINIIMIIMIIMIIMIIMOINIIMI MINIM.. IMI MII. IMMI IMI IIIIIN us,. alail I ril MN AN PR N 1 M "NAN MINI 1 Nili I N API NW 1 N MR I krn m r IIINNIVararir _--, NLML'AMAL'ARAVALIMMLWRAL'ffli VENEHLUILVINNEAL: 12 8 PITCH ALUMINUM SOFFIT 4 FASCIA II CUT STONE CAP W/ ROCK FACE EDGE CULTURED STONE 5/4x8 LP TRIM TEXTURED TO" LP WRAP TEXTURED COLUMN 5/4x8 LP TRIM TEXTURED ET CREENS Tx4 OVER 2x10 FASCIA (GABLES) WRAP W/ ALUM. DRAWN BY: MATT .1. REVISIONS DATE: REMARKS: 7-14-20 PRELIM 8-6-20 8-10-20 BIDS 9-16-20 PERMITS 0 U z z 4 0 . " z w () 0, op c`-) - 0 FLA51-IING FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER RS. PLYWOOD PANELS, JUNCTION OF ROOF AND WALLS, CHIMENYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SIDING MATERIALS, OR WERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL ICE DAM PROTECTION I LAYER OP 040 COATED ROOFING OR COATED GLASS G EASE SHEET SI-IALL WE APPLIED FROM THE EAVES TO A LINE 24" INSIDE THE EXTERIOR WALL LINE WITH ALL LAPS CEMENTED TOGETHER ATTIC VENTILATION PROVIDE ATTIC VENTILATION EQUAL TO I/300 OF ATTIC AREA ROOF VENTS - 50% SOFFIT VENTS - 50% PATIO DOORS TO HAVE FLASHING UNDER THRESHOLD AND BEHIND THRESHOLD SUPPORT. ALL OPENINGS TO EXTERIOR MUST BE CAULKED 4 FLASHED SIDE ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" = 11 -0" NOTE: GUTTERS W/ SCREENS COMPLETE HOUSE RIDGE VENTS RIDGE VENTS TAMKO HERITAGE 30YR SI-TINGLES RIDGE VENTS MATCH PEAK 12 5 5/8 PITCH ALUMINUM SOFFIT HARDT -SHAKE SIDING 5/4x8 LP TRIM TEXTURED FREIZE ED 5/4x4 LP TRIM TEXTURED WINDOW WRAP [d] INIIMIIMIM IMIIIMIN MIMIIIIIIIIMMI EMMEN IIMIMOMME! MENEM IMMIIMIM MIIM11111 IIIIMIMINIIIIII IMIIMIINIIM il ••••,..,.. IIMIMIMI .....•.m. 1........ J Ti MIIIIIINIIN INN MI IINIINIIMIIIIIIII HM1E11111E11 ri .1. 0 In 11111111111.111 N IMIIIIIIMIN —, 1E111 M MIIII MIIIIIIIIIMIMMIM ,..., IMMIMIMMIIII IINIINIIMIIIMIll IMIMIMIL._ NM_ _IMI_ _MIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIM • 11.111111.1111.111MIONIIIMIMIMIMIMMOMNMM1111•1111111111111111111111111111.11MIMIMINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIE 111111111111.11.11111111111MINIMIINIINIIMIIMIIMIIMIIIIIIIIMMINIIIIIIIIMIIIMINIIIIIIIMINIIMIIIMIN II 11111111.01111.1111.11111.11111MIMIIMIMIMIMIMIMIMINIMIIIIIIMMIIIIMIMIMMININIMIll MINIUM! II INIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMI MIIIIIIIMIIIIIIMMINIIIIIIIIIIIMINIINIM•IMI IIIIIIINIIMINIIIIIIIINIONIIMIIMIONIINIIMIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIMIINIIIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIINIINIIII d\171\1,1\1, II IMIM II MINN SIDE ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" = 1.-0" PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 8 202nn SHEET NO. A2 OF 5 CITY OF EDINA 42'-0" 1V-6" - 0 " 12'-6" J R-21 BATT INSULATION 2" IR-10 CERTA FOAM BELOW GRADE 8" POURED CONC. WALL SLA5 ON CIRADE DETAIL SCALE 3/4" = V-0" 12'-8" r DRAWN BY: MATT.). REVISIONS DATE: REMARKS: 7-14-20 PRELIM 8-6-20 8-10-20 BIOS 9-16-20 PERMITS LL1 z 0 PLANNING DEPART, r 1 540 FILLED R-IO CERTA FOAM __//1 ON INSIDE CRC. WALL =AT P.t.V. CONC. 20' x 6' CONC. FTG. L J r 10' - " / / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 --Ar-E WA,LL \ \ 5-114 x .1'-0 CONC. WALL 20' x IP CRC. FT. \ \ IV M. LEDGE \ \ \ \ \ \ SAND FILLED UNEXCAVATED 4' CONCRETE 8LAB W/ PEER LEER FOLINDATION WALL 5114 x 4.-0 . PRIMO CONC. 6' 045. LEDGE 20. x 6' CONC. FTG. NOTE: ADD 2" FOAM BELOW FLOOR EXCEPT MECH ROOM, FRONT STOOP AND SCREEN PORCH UNEXCAVATED SLAB ON GRADE 4" CONCRETE 6LA0 WI SEER tIESR 4" ROCK 4" SAND L L_. 2' R.I0 CERTA FOAM RI NEVE CRC. WALL 1 10 omor 12-10 CERTA 10411 ON INSIDE CRC. WALL 13'-0" 1 L 20' x 84 CCNC. FTG. 2P-0" J iV SEP 2 8 202 CITY OF EP" SHEET NO. A3 OF 5 70NDATKN WALL 8,51x 4,0"H0.16.1.J 2440. 6' INT. LEDGE 20' x 8" CONC. FTG. J r 1 1 1 1 1 1 FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE V4" = ILO" z 0 El DRAWN BY: MATS J. REVISIONS DATE: REMARKS: 7-14-20 PREUM 06-20 010-20 BIDS 9-16-20 PERMITS 16 -0" 12'-6" CATER SPIGOT lUITI4 1- ELM 01.1 610612-20 RO. 61-0 1/4" 61-0 I/4. 13'-0" 1'-9" 1.-5" 42' 0" I3'-6" 71_0" 61..641 5,-0" V-0" 6'-3" 61-3" NS 0W612 R.O. 31-0 1/4. 61-0 PATIO ETP. CONC. SCREEN 2 SORE SOFFIT DETAIL 213/4• x 9 1/2. LVS. HOR 24 4. x 9 If • Di. 1,155, SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0" !'"A SCREEN PORCH ALU1114.111 SOFFIT SM. GCMG. in 4 SEASON PORCH 1/6. 0.4 0 291 COVE SIA- t _ . . 0 r', . 5-. 1- ,,,, _ ._. 0 , 1 I 1 11-0" / / LI ROCK nqueses 24. 0.G. 4,4 KOLAR CEILING PD5656 RO. 51-0. 61-0. 24 3/4. x 5 1/2 LK. ISSR MASTER BEDROOM 00 , 0"411 GREAT ROOM CLOT. WOOD FLR 4 DINETTE 514 DV MG. 4/000 FLR GREAT ROOM CABINET SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" CLO. COVE ROOF TR/SEES 24. 0.C. 21_01 FULL CT BAOKSPLASH IR COVE La/ BASE INSET STEPPED SOFFIT 111GOVE r-RFL", SEE PETAL RETCUTL CLG. COVE MSTR BATH 5,1 DP OM R TILE LAVER PHELE1 t 04. DEEP TI/VIOL 1 1./.2 WOO EDGE F005 COVE 1x 1021 DATA JACK PY in 5 3.. 12 12 1-10" KITCHEN c. 51-I P.O. LOOP FLR g r,; ) ,Kr TILE STONE 51-1 CLO. /000 PLR 5 I I/5. CLOT. WOOD RR IR M/ STR ELE METER 6'-II" I IMP, QUARTZ TR21 PECE FULL ACKPLASH ELE PANEL EI_EC. COCKTOP CV SS 445O0E HOOD 0 66K MECH ROOM SLI US. 00. UNC. In 0 1 6.49 14EA FD VANEE MARTZ IVA SP W-1 W OLE. CARPET FIREPLACE DETAIL DESIGNER CLOSETS ® SCALE 1/4" = P-0" %EDF.= LULLS AND FIRETAPE 2r2 0 NCR DEE/66ER PANTRY 51-1 US' CM. COOP PLO 24. rxt 2-4. 0 INSULATE HALLS I • I 2 Erb-0 POO< DR 11_0' I2'- ' 11-1" Loop Top 1.0.14.0 EDGE 2 . STEP ROCF TFUSSEE CLOT. COVE 24. OG. FOYER 51-I WOO RO MUD ROOM 5 66. C11-0 CER TILE 0 STUDY S.-. GLG. , LLIJOD " LOCATION EMIR FLOOR CURET DATA /ACK 9 PINNITOK MET GARAGE 4' CONCRETE ELAS WI FUSER MESH 9 ; Ll 1/4. ii 4;. MST BATH LINEN FINISHED COKPLETE INSULATED CEILING 213/4. x 5 VV. LVL HPR SIEULATE LULLS 5'-4" II 2r2x1EICR IT EL. REVERED SCALE 1/4" = l'-0" 610612-221 RO. 04' 6,0 Ile RATE HEIGHT MATCH HOUSE FRONT PORCH STD. CONC. 4U110421 SOFFIT BEDROOM VD' CLO. CARMT 610612 RO. 61-0 1/4. MAIN FLOOR: WALLS: PLATE HEIGHT: 9.-1 I/5" WINDOWS AND DOORS: TOP OF RO.: PELLA IMPERVIA WINDOWS PELLA LIFESTYLE PATIO DOORS ROCF TRW:0E6 24. 0.C. 4"4T'A' LK 24 4. x 5 1/2. 04. NOR 510612-211./ 130. 114. 6 ,0 I/4" MAIN LEVEL FINISHED SOI. Ft. SHEET NO. A4 OF 5 AIN FLOOR 1131SEASON PORCH 150 5Gi. FT. 2291 SQ. FT. PLANNING DEPARTMEN DTD. CCN4 DRIVEVAS GARAGE 513 SQ. FT. SEP 2 8 2021 5' - 0" 61_611 6'-6" 1,-5" 10'-0' 13'-0" 2r-o" FIRST FLOOR PLAN 441-0" SCALE 1/4" = l'-0" CITY OF EDINA C1ARAE/ HOUSE SECTION SEP 2 8 2021 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION lir II GENERAL NOTES: - TTPICAL OVERHANGS (U. N. 0.1 - VENTILATE ROOF TO V300th OF - S. Al EAVES - 12. Al GABLES - SO6 IN EAVE ROOF FL AN ENSULATED CEILIE4 AREA. - 508 1N UPPER 1/3 ATTIC 30 TR ASPHALT TAMA.° IS. FELT I/2• OXIBOARD SHEATIENG UM 14 CLIPS ON TRE265.5 6 24. 0.0. SHINGLES 12 LJ F-- MIL PE EY GT 49 INLJLATIC4 LT THE A TR_SSES IC MANUFT6CTURETs1 VEt• t3)/ TIL STI N 7: \ I 1980.10E TO I ROC SOFT A 100 a VENT! VEN16 TIC VFXTILAT1 ATTIC - 50 - SE36 1/1E41 ECU 8 PITCH ter— IV I PLANNING DEPARTMENT R-10 CERTA Fa 41 st4 cce4c. WALL SCALE 1/8" = P-0" 30 YR ASPHALT TAMKO SHINGLES 150 FELT 1/2" 0515 SHEATHING W/14 CLIPS ON TRUSSES e 24"0.C. 10 ICE SHIELD TO 24" INSIDE WALL mist E R-45 INSULATION 4 MIL POLY 5/5" GYP. SD. 266 SUB-FASCIA ALUMINIUM SOFFIT 1 FASCIA SOFFIT VENTS e 41-0°O.C. 5/4 x5 L.P. TRIM FRE IZE BD EXTERIOR FINISH PER ELEVATION 1/16" OXISOARD PLYWOOD 2 x 6 STUDS e 16"0.C. R-2I INSULATION 4 MIL POLY 1/2° GYP. BOARD INTERIOR FINISH TYPICAL CROSS SECTION SCALE 3/5" 8 1'-0" DRAWN BY: MATT J. REVISIONS DATE: REMARKS: 7-14-20 PRELIM 8-6-20 8-10-20 BIDS 9-16-20 PERMITS VT 0 O U 4 z rm 4 0 Pq 111 (7 144 (D 0 L vi „ Z 914 0 al N u z 0 z WOODDALE 81.11.1.0ERS 0 SHEET NO. A5 OF 5 SCALE 1/411 = P-0" SCALE 1/4" = 11-0" CITY OF EDINA Wooddale Builders, Inc. 6117 Blue Circle Drive Hopkins, MN 55343 Revision Date Description PLANS SHOWN LIGHT IN BACKGROUND ARE FOR LOCATION REFERENCE ONLY. PLAN NOTES AND ELEMENTS SHOWN UGHT MAY NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE HANSON GROUP'S DESIGN. (2) LVL CONTINUOUS HEADER LENGTH OF CONTINUOUS HEADER 1,9'z 2,3't (2) 9,6 BEARING STUDS MIN. (1) 9,6 BEARING STUD & (1) 2e6 FULL HEIGHT STUD EACH END OF HEADER WO ANCHOR BOLTS (7' MIN. EMBED) w/ x 2' x Ile PLATE WASHERS AT LOCATIONS SHOWN (MAY SUBSTITUTE W e 8' SIMPSON TITEN HD FOR BOLT) • FASTEN FRAMING ABOVE AS SHOWN FOR BRACED WALL PANELS FASTEN KING STUD TO HEADER yr/ (2) ROWS 16d SINKER NAILS @ 3.0.C. FASTEN TOP PLATE TO HEADER yr/ (2) ROWS 16d SINKER NAILS @ 3.0.C. REFERENCE PLAN MAIN LEVEL PLAN SHOWN FOR LOCATION REFERENCE ONLY PLAN NOTES: • ALL REMAINING BEAMS AND HEADERS NOT SPECIFIED ARE TO BE MIN. (2) alit OR AN ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTE USTED IN THE FRAMING NOTES. • PROVIDE (2) 2x6 BEARING STUDS AT ENDS OF ALL GIRDER TRUSSES U.N.O. • SEE FRAMING NOTES FOR BEAM AND HEADER SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS. SPF STUD GRADE OR BETTER SPE NO.2 GRADE OR BETTER 1W WIDTH 1.3E OR BETTER SPF NO.2 GRADE OR BETTER SYP NO.2 GRADE OR BETTER OR LSL 17' WIDTH - 1.55E OR BETTER 17'.WIDTH - 1.9E OR RESTER 1.8E OR BETTER SYP 26FV4 OR BETTER ANGLES/MISC ASTM A36 (Fy = 36KSI) TUBES -ASTM A500 Gr. B (Fy = 46 KSI) W SECTIONS -ASTM A992 (Fy = 50 KSI) 35 PSF (SNOW) 15 PSF 40 PSF 15 PSF 115 MPH ULTIMATE EXP. B ABBREVIATIONS TYP. = TYPICAL SIM. = SIMILAR U.N.O. = UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE MIN. = MINIMUM MAX. = MAXIMUM O.C. = ON CENTER = CONTINUOUS OVER Ei- (3-FT 6)IN POST vd STANDARD C P CONN C IONS 4 E.E.440;4j4444.4 (3) 9,6 BEARING STUDS is r (3) Zit BEARING STUDS CO TRiICT SHEAMVALL AS SHOWN It) 2/S1 3-FT) WALL (2), 'LVL EXTESDE HEAD (4.FT) 1.13. FT, INDICATES MIN. (2) 9,6 BEARING STUDS BELOW CONTINUOUS HEADER BETWEEN OPENINGS TYP. U.N.O. PROV CONC FOOTI MIN. 20' x 8' E STRIP S UNDER ALL ON WALLS ATEW DI CTION OF T SSES BY S. PLIERTYP. 6x6 POST w/ STANDARD BASE & CAP CONNECTIONS TYP. T RIGID EL AS 3/S1 CONS RI SHEA SHOW FASTEN FRAMING ABOVE AS SHOWN FOR BRACED WALL PANELS ALONG THIS SHEARWALL AS WELL AS ABOVE OVERHEAD DOOR SEE PLAN & FRAMING NOTES FOR HEADER & BEARING4(ING STUDS TYPICAL 2x6 STUDS @ 16.0.C. PROVIDE DOUBLE STUDS AT END OF SHEARWALL HATCHED AREA INDICATES Xr," OR THICKER PLYWOODOSB EXTERIOR SHEATHING FASTENED TO STUDS Iv/ 8d NAILS @ 4' O.C. AT PANEL EDGES & 0 12'0.C. AT INTERIOR SUPPORTS SIMPSON STHDI4 HOLDOWN ANCHOR FASTENED TO DOUBLE STUDS (REFER TO 4/S1 FOR POST-INSTALLED HOLDOWN OPTION) (2)& 0 ANCHOR BOLTS (7' MIN. EMBED) •0 FRAMING DETAIL GARAGE SHEARWALL LARGER HATCHED AREA INDICATES 76 OR THICKER PLYWOOD OR OSB SHEATHING APPLIED TO EXTERIOR Iv/ STANDARD 6712' NAILING PATTERN NAIL SHEATHING TO HEADER yr/ 8d NAILS @ 3.0.C. EA. WAY TYP. SIMPSON LSTA24 STRAP ON INSIDE FACE OF WALL (PROVIDE SPACER TO FLUSH OUT HEADER TO WALL STUD THICKNESS) LOCATE PANEL JOINT WITHIN 2,0' FROM CENTER OF WALL HEIGHT AS REOD (2x SOLID BLOCKING REQUIRED AT SHEATHING JOINT) SMALL HATCH AREA INDICATES 7A" OR THICKER PLYWOOD OR OSB SHEATHING APPUED TO EXTERIOR SIDE OF STUDS (NAIL SHEATHING AROUND PERIMETER ye/ (2) ROWS 8d NAILS @ 3.0.C. STAGGERED & TO RATES / BLOCKING @ 3' 0.C.) SIMPSON STHDI4 EMBEDDED HOLDOWN ANCHOR AT LOCATIONS SHOWN (REFER TO 4/S1 FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTION) SIMPSON HITS HOLDOWN ANCHOR FASTENED TO DOUBLE STUDS w/W0 x 12' LONG SIMPSON TITEN HD SCREW-IN ANCHOR CONCRETE FOUNDATION BELOW PLANNING DEPARTaTP°ST-INSTALLED HOLDOWN OPTION SEP 2 8 20211 CITY C)F FRAMING DETAIL I hereby eerily that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the Slate of Minnesota. Signed: Print Name: Ryan Mack Date: 9-14-20 License Number: 46673 3407 Mole, Lena North Sub 4 Plymouth, MN 55441 Tel R12-708-3572 www.hansongroopmn.com Single Family Residence 309 Dearborn Court Edina, MN Project Number: 0.512 Date: September 14.2020 Sheets: 1 of 1 S PROJECT SCOPE DESIGN OF BEAM AND HEADER FRAMING, AND THE MAIN WINDFORCE RESISTING SYSTEM FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE: CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE DRAWINGS, STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. GENERAL NOTES 1. THESE DOCUMENTS APPLY TO STRUCTURAL ONLY. REFER TO HOUSE PLANS PREPARED BY WOODDALE BUILDERS LAST DATED 8-10-29 FOR MORE INFORMATION. 2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER TO PROVIDE ALL FUTURE PLAN CHANGES TO THE HANSON GROUP FOR REVIEW. IF FINAL TRUSS LAYOUTS VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON HOUSE PLANS, NOTIFY ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3. ADEQUATE SHORING DURING CONSTRUCTION IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 4. CONTRACTOR AND BUILDER ARE TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. NOTIFY THE HANSON GROUP IF DISCREPANCIES ARISE. 5. MEANS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. FRAMING NOTES 1. ALL HEADERS ARE TO BE MINIMUM (2) 9,10 LUMBER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. (2) 9,10 MEMBERS SHOWN MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH (2) INV 734' LVL OR (3) 115. x 594. LVL AS REQUIRED. 3. ALL DIMENSION LUMBER HEADERS AND BEAMS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE BEARING STUD AT EACH END AND TWO AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. ALL 2-PLY LVL AND GIRDER TRUSS BEAMS AND HEADERS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO BEARING STUDS AT EACH END AND AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. 3.PLY LVL MEMBERS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE BEARING STUDS AT EACH END AND AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. ADDITIONAL BEARING STUDS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR LVL SUBSTITUTED FOR STANDARD SAWN LUMBER. ALL BEARING ABOVE IS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS. TRUSS SUPPLIER IS TO VERIFY GIRDER TRUSS BEARING LENGTH AND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS. 4. ALL HEADERS AND BEAMS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE FULL HEIGHT KING STUD AT EACH END. EXTERIOR OPENINGS GREATER THAN EIGHT FEET IN WIDTH ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO FULL HEIGHT KING STUDS AT EACH END, EXCEPT AT TALL WALLS AS NOTED. EXTERIOR OPENINGS GREATER THAN FOURTEEN FEET IN WIDTH ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE FULL HEIGHT KING STUDS AT EACH END. EXCEPT AT TALL WALLS AS NOTED. FOR CONTINUOUS BEAM CONDITIONS, SPAN IN DETERMINING NUMBER OF KING STUDS IS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE HEADER. 5. ALL CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE MADE WITH ADEQUATE SIMPSON, USP OR EQUAL JOIST HANGERS, CUPS, POST CAPS, AND POST BASES. CONNECT MULTIPLE MEMBER LVLS TOGETHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. 6. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, O.N.O. A. 9,6 STUDS SPACED @ B. WALL SHEATHING: M. MIR STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEATHING yr/ 8d COMMON NAILS @ 6.0.0 AT PANEL EDGES AND 12'0.C. AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS OR 1W 16 GAUGE STAPLES @ 3'/ 6" SPACING. 7. ALL INTERIOR WALLS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, U.N.O. A. 204 OR 2x6 STUDS SPACED @ 16'0.C. B. WALL SHEATHING: & MIN. GYPSUM SHEATHING FASTENED TO FRAMING yr/ 5d COOLER NAILS 0 8' O.C. MAX. OR TYPE S/W WALLBOARD SCREWS @ 16' O.C. MAX. 155' MINIMUM STUD PENETRATION) 8. ALL ROOFS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. A. ROOF FRAMING SPACED ATA MAXIMUM OF 24'0.C. B. FASTEN ALL ROOF FRAMING TO TOP PLATES WITH USP RT7 OR SIMPSON H2.5 CUPS OR EQUIVALENT AND (4) 0,131-0 x 3' TOENAILS. C. ROOF SHEATHING: & STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEATHING yr/ ed COMMON NAILS @ 6'0.0 AT PANEL EDGES AND 12-0.C. AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS OR 1W 16 GAUGE STAPLES @ 3'/ 6" SPACING. 9. ALONG LENGTH OF WALLS. LAP WALL TOP PLATES A MINIMUM OF 24' AND FASTEN TOGETHER WITH (12) 0.13113 x 3' IN LAP ZONE. AT CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS, LAP PLATES AND PROVIDE (3) 0.131'0x 3' FACE NAILS. IS. ALL BEARING POINT OR POST LOADS ARE TO BE BLOCKED SOLID TO THE FOUNDATION. 11. VERIFY DROPPED VERSUS FLUSH BEAM CONDITIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS. 12. ALL OTHER FASTENERS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE TABLE R602.3(1). 13. ALL STUD PUES IN BUILT UP BEARING STUD COLUMNS TO BE FASTENED TO SHEATHING AS SPECIFIED IN NOTES 6 AND 7. 14. THE FRONT ENTRY PORCH AND SCREEN PORCH ARE CONSIDERED PRIMARILY OPEN, NON-ESSENTIAL PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE AND ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE MAIN WINDFORCE RESISTING SYSTEM OF THE HOME. PROVIDE CODE REQUIRED UPLIFT CONNECTION AT ALL POSTS. MATERIALS WALL STUDS (117 OR LESS): WALL STUDS (OVER 117): LSL STUDS: DIMENSIONAL LUMBER: TREATED LUMBER: LSL BEAMS: LVL: PSL GLULAM: STRUCTURAL STEEL: RWOOADFSLIVE LOAD: ROOF DEAD LOAD: FLOOR LIVE LOAD: FLOOR DEAD LOAD: WIND LOAD: CODE 2020 MINNESOTA RESIDENTIAL CODE (MIN. LENGTH) INDICATES EXTERIOR BRACED WALL PANEL w/ SHEATHING ON EXTERIOR FACE IN ACCORDANCE vv/ FRAMING NOTE 6. PROVIDE INCREASED FASTENING REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN BELOW. (MIN. LENGTH) INDICATES INTERIOR BRACED WALL PANEL w/ GYPSUM SHEATHING BOTH FACES WITH EITHER FASTENER OPTION USTED IN FRAMING NOTE 7. SPACED AT 4" 0.C. PROVIDE INCREASED FASTENING REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN BELOW. I INDICATES ENGINEERED WIND RESISTING ELEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL SHEETS. L - REPRESENTS FIGURE R602.10.8.2(3) ROOF TRUSSES ..„................./.' iir, FASTENED TO PLATES w/ (4) 0.13113 x 3' 'I *u TOENAILS & SIMPSON ROOF TRUSS FASTENED TO PLATES Iv/ (MIN. tl FLAT ar6 @ 24. 0.C. (3) PER BRACED WALL PANEL) ROOF TRUSSES FRAME 2x4 BOX AROUND SPACE BETWEEN TRUSS yr/ SAME SHEATHING AND FASTENING AS WALL BELOW (OR REPLACE yr/ ADEQUATE DEPTH DI MEMBER) Ls: 112.5 CUP % 2x4 BLOCKING / BETWEEN TRUSSES NAILED TO TOP PLATES w/ (3) 0.131'0 x 3' NAILS EACH EXTERIOR - NON-BEARING 0.13113 x 3" TOENAILS @ 6' 0.C. WALL on (4) 0.1319 x3' NAILS BRACED WALL PANEL BRACED WALL CONNECTION SIMPSON A35 FRAMING ANGLE EACH END EXTERIOR BEARING WALL 2:44 BLOCKING BETWEEN ROOF TRUSSES NAILED TO TOP PLATES yr/ (3) PROVIDE ROOF TRUSS DIRECTLY IN LINE w/ BRACED WALL PANEL 0.131'0 x 3' NAILS EACH FASTENED TO PLATES NAIL BOTTOM PLATE vd (3) 16d NAILS EVERY 16' (OR AS SHOWN TO w/ 0.131'0 x 3" TOENAILS @ 6' O.C. FASTEN PLATE 11./ &CONCRETE SCREWS OR POWDER ACTUATED 0.145" WASHERED PINS 0 Iv O.C. W/1' (ROOF TRUSSES) DETAILS SHOWN ABOVE ARE ALTERNATIVE CONNECTIONS TO BE USED WHEN BRACED WALL PANEL DOES NOT ALIGN WITH FRAMING. THE RIGHT IF REOD) , EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE INTERIOR WALL INTERIOR WALL PERPENDICULAR TO FRAMING PARALLEL rt/ FRAMING SECTIONS SHOWN DEPICT CONNECTIONS OF BRACED WALL PANELS TO ROOF TRUSSES ABOVE AND TO CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB AS REQUIRED. THESE SHEETS REPRESENT A COMPLETE DESIGN OF THE 'MAIN WINDFORCE RESISTING SYSTEM' FOR THE ENTIRE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE LOCATION AND LENGTH OF EACH BRACED WALL PANEL AND ENGINEERED WIND RESISTING ELEMENT THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE HANSON GROUP'S DESIGN IS SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WALLS NOT SPECIFICALLY LABELED ON THE PLANS MAY BE STANDARD FRAMING. FRAMING DETAIL RIGID SHEAR PANEL NOTE INFO APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY ACROSS DETAIL UNLESS NOTED/SHOWN OTHERWISE. COPYRIGHT HANSON GROUP, LLC 2020